Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I 100% concur with the article written here by Dr. Michael Mann:

Log In - The New York Times

The whole article is quote-worthy, but i'll try to pick my favorite parts:

My colleague Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who died in 2010, used to say that being a scientist-advocate is not an oxymoron. Just because we are scientists does not mean that we should check our citizenship at the door of a public meeting, he would explain. The New Republic once called him a “scientific pugilist” for advocating a forceful approach to global warming. But fighting for scientific truth and an informed debate is nothing to apologize for.

If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest. There is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat.

This is hardly a radical position. Our Department of Homeland Security has urged citizens to report anything dangerous they witness: “If you see something, say something.” We scientists are citizens, too, and, in climate change, we see a clear and present danger. The public is beginning to see the danger, too — Midwestern farmers struggling with drought, more damaging wildfires out West, and withering record summer heat across the country — while wondering about possible linkages between rapid Arctic warming and strange weather patterns, like the recent outbreak of Arctic air across much of the United States.
 
From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007
 

Attachments

  • ipcc.png
    ipcc.png
    368.2 KB · Views: 306
Last edited:
BRIEF OF SCIENTISTS AMICUS GROUP AS AMICI CURIAE IN US CLIMATE CHANGE CASE

This is a brief made by leading scientists as amicus curiae in a US Court of Appeal case on the subject of government inaction on climate change. It provides an excellent summary of the science and the actions required to preserve a livable planet for future generations.

"Amici Scientists have the purpose here only to assist the Court’s consideration of the nature of the climate crisis, including the burden being imposed on present and future generations, and to describe a prescription for a plan of action that, if pursued, could be adequate to preserve essential features of the climate system under which civilization developed."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Amicus/20131112.AmicusScientists.pdf
 
Last edited:
Assessing ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change’’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature

This recent paper provides the most important consolidated summary of which I am aware of climate change science, the expected global impacts of unconstrained greenhouse gas emissions and the policies required to effectively address the problem, as well the climate and intergenerational justice implications of alternative energy and economic policies. The following abstract and the Introduction provide an overview of the subjects addressed in greater detail in this paper:

"Abstract: We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of approximately 500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of approximately 1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2 degrees C global warming, would spur ‘‘slow’’ feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4 degrees C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels.

Introduction

Humans are now the main cause of changes of Earth’s atmospheric composition and thus the drive for future climate change [1]. The principal climate forcing, defined as an imposed change of planetary energy balance, is increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel emissions, much of which will remain in the atmosphere for millennia. The climate response to this forcing and society’s response to climate change are complicated by the system’s inertia, mainly due to the ocean and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica together with the long residence time of fossil fuel carbon in the climate system. The inertia causes climate to appear to respond slowly to this human made forcing, but further long-lasting responses can be locked in.

More than 170 nations have agreed on the need to limit fossil fuel emissions to avoid dangerous human-made climate change, as formalized in the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. However, the stark reality is that global emissions have accelerated (Fig. 1) and new efforts are underway to massively expand fossil fuel extraction by drilling to increasing ocean depths and into the Arctic, squeezing oil from tar sands and tar shale, hydro-fracking to expand extraction of natural gas, developing exploitation of methane hydrates, and mining of coal via mountaintop removal and mechanized longwall mining. The growth rate of fossil fuel emissions increased from 1.5%/year during 1980–2000 to 3%/year in 2000–2012, mainly because of increased coal use.

The Framework Convention does not define a dangerous level for global warming or an emissions limit for fossil fuels. The European Union in 1996 proposed to limit global warming to 2 degrees C relative to pre-industrial times, based partly on evidence that many ecosystems are at risk with larger climate change. The 2 degrees C target was reaffirmed in the 2009 ‘‘Copenhagen Accord’’ emerging from the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention, with specific language ‘‘We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, as documented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius…’’.

A global warming target is converted to a fossil fuel emissions target with the help of global climate-carbon-cycle models, which reveal that eventual warming depends on cumulative carbon emissions, not on the temporal history of emissions. The emission limit depends on climate sensitivity, but central estimates, including those in the upcoming Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are that a 2 degrees C global warming limit implies a cumulative carbon emissions limit of the order of 1000 GtC. In comparing carbon emissions, note that some authors emphasize the sum of fossil fuel and deforestation carbon. We bookkeep fossil fuel and deforestation carbon separately, because the larger fossil fuel term is known more accurately and this carbon stays in the climate system for hundreds of thousands of years. Thus fossil fuel carbon is the crucial human input that must be limited. Deforestation carbon is more uncertain and potentially can be offset on the century time scale by storage in the biosphere, including the soil, via reforestation and improved agricultural and forestry practices.

There are sufficient fossil fuel resources to readily supply 1000 GtC, as fossil fuel emissions to date (370 GtC) are only a small fraction of potential emissions from known reserves and potentially recoverable resources (Fig. 2). Although there are uncertainties in reserves and resources, ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and continuing technological advances ensure that more and more of these fuels will be economically recoverable. As we will show, Earth’s paleoclimate record makes it clear that the CO2 produced by burning all or most of these fossil fuels would lead to a very different planet than the one that humanity knows.

Our evaluation of a fossil fuel emissions limit is not based on climate models but rather on observational evidence of global climate change as a function of global temperature and on the fact that climate stabilization requires long-term planetary energy balance. We use measured global temperature and Earth’s measured energy imbalance to determine the atmospheric CO2 level required to stabilize climate at today’s global temperature, which is near the upper end of the global temperature range in the current interglacial period (the Holocene). We then examine climate impacts during the past few decades of global warming and in paleoclimate records including the Eemian period, concluding that there are already clear indications of undesirable impacts at the current level of warming and that 2 degrees C warming would have major deleterious consequences. We use simple representations of the carbon cycle and global temperature, consistent with observations, to simulate transient global temperature and assess carbon emission scenarios that could keep global climate near the Holocene range. Finally, we discuss likely overshooting of target emissions, the potential for carbon extraction from the atmosphere, and implications for energy and economic policies, as well as intergenerational justice."

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0081648&representation=PDF

- - - Updated - - -

Fund managers who ignore climate risk breaching ‘fiduciary duty’

"UN climate chief says future investments must reflect need for planet to avoid warming to dangerous levels

Speaking at an investment summit in New York, the United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said bankers would be “blatantly in breach of their fiduciary duty” if they failed to accelerate the greening of their portfolios.

“Investment decisions need to reflect the clear scientific evidence, and fiduciary responsibility needs to grasp the intergenerational reality: namely that unchecked climate change has the potential to impact and eventually devastate the lives, livelihoods and savings of many, now and well into the future,” she said."
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/16/fund-managers-who-ignore-climate-risks-breaching-fiduciary-duty/
 
Radiative forcing of GHGs

This graph shows the Radiative Forcing for some GHGs (Carbon Dioxide, Methan and Nitrous Oxide) in the last 10000 years before 2005 (hope that you can see the x-axis). The Radiative Forcing is a measure of how much the sun would have to get brighter to have as much warming effect as the greenhouse gas is having.
From the graph it can be seen that the Radiative Forcing is higher for Carbon Dioxide with respect to the other GHGs (ordinate axis) and that the Radiative Forcing for all GHGs is increasing in the latest years.
 

Attachments

  • GHGs.png
    GHGs.png
    301.9 KB · Views: 235
New animation from NASA showing warming world:
NASA | Six Decades of a Warming Earth - YouTube
Key conclusion from the accompanying article:
NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.
With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.
 
These sites describe the key elements of the IPCC report issued last autumn:

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/ipcc-climate-report-scary-conclusions


Interesting lawsuit against denier website:

Judge Says Websites Must Face Defamation Lawsuit For Calling Climate Scientist A ‘Fraud’


It seems to be common ground that we are heading for global warming on the order of 4 degrees Celsius. See:

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/bl...il-and-gas-will-fry-climate-exxonmobil-report


The increasing cost of carbon is reflected in the record number of billion-dollar weather disasters in 2013.

Earth set a new record for billion-dollar weather disasters in 2013 with 41, said insurance broker Aon Benfield in their Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report.
See:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2612

The increasing cost of carbon is also reflected in the fact that extreme weather cost Canada a record $3.2B in 2013. See:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/extreme-weather-cost-canada-record-3-2b-insurers-say-1.2503659


Putting a price on carbon is recognized to be the simple solution to GHG emissions and climate change:

The prescription then for anyone seriously concerned about climate change is simple: price carbon to the point where its now unpriced damages are incorporated into the price, and get out of the way. It’s simple. It works. It’s conservative to the core.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2014/01/23/the-silver-bullet-of-climate-change-policy/
 
Last edited:

Absolutely disgusting. More evidence that our government cannot be trusted in handling climate matters (or any matters, possibly). Without sliding into politics, I do think the United States has an important role in leading the effort to stop climate disruption. It looks more and more like that leadership will not take place and instead we're going to keep getting lies and antagony.