View Single Post
  #77  
Old 02-06-2014, 06:13 PM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne View Post
Hi Renato,
Irrespective of climate sensitivity to CO2 (which we all agree is not zero) the real concern is avoiding the point at which feedback mechanisms become self reinforcing. Now let us assume that climate sensitivity to CO2 was half what has been accepted to date, let us also make the assumption that our economies remain tied to carbon intensive energy sources (as the lobby groups influencing the debate in the public arena hope to be the case) simple mathematics can be used to predict the amount of additional time this gifts us before the denouement of modern civilization. With 2.8% pa growth in the energy sector, halving climate sensitivity with a magic wand buys us at most an additional 25 years until we face the same problem.

The 'business as usual' policy has only one mathematically possible outcome and it is a train wreck. The only question remaining is how much track we have left and how much momentum we will be carrying when we get there.

I really don't understand why avoiding that outcome by changing the way we collectively structure the energy basis of the global economy is anathema to anyone considering the alternative. The only logical assumption I am left with is that either those people making the decisions are not logical, there is a false premise in my argument (or theirs) or that they have no interest in the long term viability of the operating system of this planet and by extension, have no thought for the living things that depend upon it. The evidence I see with my own eyes suggests that the latter option most likely encapsulates the truth of the matter.
Hi Clive,
Someone arbitrarily made the magic point of concern 2C above pre-industrial times. So we are half way there. Using the best estimate ECS of 3C in the previous assessment reports led to predictions of temperature rises of 0.2C per decade. So that's 50 years to achieve that one degree C.

But if ECS is only 1.5C, well that'll be around 100 years - which is good news. Lots of time to formulate mitigation strategies, come up with better renewable energy sources or even to see if the ECS figure of 1.5C is accurate or too high.

Anyhow, it's all irrelevant. China, India, Brazil aren't going to cut their emissions any time soon. Japan couldn't even meet it's Kyoto protocol target. Let's hope the true ECS figure is indeed the low one of the IPCC range.
Regards,
Renato