To Keep AGW Within Limits 80% of Reserves Must Stay in the Ground

+ Reply to Thread

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Nations had agreed to limit AGW, here is the full PDF article;
http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-cont...-Full-rev2.pdf

Global carbon budget
Research by the Potsdam Institute calculates that to reduce the chance of exceeding 2°C warming to 20%, the
global carbon budget for 2000-2050 is 886 GtCO2. Minus emissions from the first decade of this century, this
leaves a budget of 565 GtCO2 for the remaining 40 years to 2050.
Global warming potential of proven reserves
The total carbon potential of the Earth’s known fossil fuel reserves comes to 2795 GtCO2. 65% of this is from
coal, with oil providing 22% and gas 13%. This means that governments and global markets are currently
treating as assets, reserves equivalent to nearly 5 times the carbon budget for the next 40 years. The investment
consequences of using only 20% of these reserves have not yet been assessed.
Global warming potential of listed reserves
The fossil fuel reserves held by the top 100 listed coal companies and the top 100 listed oil and gas companies
represent potential emissions of 745 GtCO2. This exceeds the remaining carbon budget of 565 GtCO2 by 180
GtCO2.This means that using just the listed proportion of reserves in the next 40 years is enough to take us
beyond 2°C of global warming. On top of this further resources are held by state entities. Given only 20% of the
total reserves can be used to stay below 2°C, if this is applied uniformly, then only 149 of the 745 GtCO2 held by
listed companies can be used unabated. Investors are thus left exposed to the risk of unburnable carbon. If the
2°C target is rigorously applied, then up to 80% of declared reserves owned by the world’s largest listed coal,
oil and gas companies and their investors would be subject to impairment as these assets become stranded.

Even with a 2*C rise in temperature, most likely the tipping point of tundra melt methane self-release (or positive feedback loop) will be passed. Once that threshold is crossed, nothing people can do will stop it from turning to thermageddon and an ELE. The best thing was the 2006 advice of James Hanson--to reduce human fossil fuel burning 90% within a decade. But CO2 from humans is going up at 3% per year for the growth only ecocide economy, and we have only 5 years to go before it is too darn late. People wonder why environmentalists are so persistent in trying to get this done. It is because time is of the essence and there is no place else to go. Plus we care about future generations, and our biosphere.

Yes, immediate population reduction is mandatory to meet the requirement of leaving 80% of fossil fuels in the ground from now until 2050, or there will be a horrific mass die off event with any population over 3 billion by then. This thread should stay at the top. One child per woman is the ideal choice.

In "Storms of My Grandchildren" Hanson describes the fact that there is another .4*C of warming even if all fossil fuel burning stops immediately, and increasing over a 25 year time frame or so. I read reports from Russian and Alaskan Tundra scientists in 2009 that they considered the geometrically increasing methane releases "at the tipping point of a positive feedback loop", or self-release. The book "Thermageddon" I read in the mid 1990s was not believable to me, until 2009 and Hanson's book this year. Crossing the tipping point of tundra methane release causes even more warming, which after a delay of of about 40 years also heats up the ocean enough at the depths of methane hydrate/clathrate deposits to start them explosively releasing and warming further to deposits deeper, until there is a complete turnover, by 2300-2500. Too fast for most life to adapt, and creating the finish of the "Anthropocene Epoch Extinction Event".
Holding the warming to within 2*C is not probably good enough to stop the tundra self release mechanism when the world is at an average of +1*C right now (with another .4*C in store). The methane hydrate sensitivity is about 2*F or .9*C. The Norwegians reported ocean temperature rise of 1*F down to the clathrate deposit level of 400m, with slow releases dissolving.
Hanson says that if people burn up most of the rest of the oil and coal, this will progress to a runaway greenhouse effect that will permanently sterilize Earth. Most likely die-off will prevent that, and like he said, the ice age is over. There is more carbon in the form of methane than there was during the 10 times longer turnover event known as Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum caused by extended CO2 from vulcanism and physical disruption of oceanic hydrates by seismic activity. So, he says, this extinction event would be worse than then. He had originally called for a 90% reduction in HGHGs by 2016, and even then there would be another 1*F of warming. That was before it was fully realized how hard the Arctic would be hit by more warming and the tundra melting methane releases were known.
The general hope is that the tipping point won't be seriously breached and maybe it will stop at 2*C of average warming. The hope is that we won't have a total extinction event (geological scale) and adaptation can take place. It is a big gamble, and the forces of business as usual and ignorance are greater than the forces to stop most fossil fuel use. To most, the economy is more important than, to them, unknown effects in the future---let THEM deal with it. The economy is already beginning collapse from overpopulation, and cutting fossil fuel burning would leave billions without enough food and power. Kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, with only a thread of hope mitigation will occur.

When Al Gore was in the wraps of "An Inconvenient Truth", the news about Arctic methane releases was just coming in, and too late to add to his blockbuster. It was bad enough even without the added input of released methane going up exponentially. More was known by late 2009, but not in a lot of media.
The average human is very ignorant about AGW and overpopulation, unfortunately. Everyone lives in their own little world, and care mostly about just their lives. Way too few are knowledgeable and thinking globally. Way too few are choosing one or none with children, or to leading a much smaller eco-footprint life. The teaching of green subjects is not as common as it should be. The media does not spend enough time on the environment, and politicians only care about their constituent's and their own, short term future.
Like has been often and long said, they do not grasp the gravity of the situation. The vast majority of naked apes do not or can not know, and can not or will not change. Those with the knowledge and power are not using it enough toward the long term goal of sustainability of the biosphere and our own species. Those, like us, with the knowledge, but lacking in wealth and power, can only post or write about it and educate those whom we come in contact. We put up some local posters, have bumper stickers, and try to set an example of green living. We like to think our votes count, yet all we really have are a few parties in opposition of the environment. One would make overpopulation worse(with immigration) while cutting emissions, and the other would help overpopulation a little(with immigration) and drill baby drill. The so called Green Party would help with pollution while doing nothing to decrease the increase in population. The Constitution Party would get rid of invaders who are overbreeding, and keep up the rest of the growth of population and consumption. Communists and Socialists would take from the hard working and give to the lazy, and do nothing about emissions or population growth.
Even if all of us environmentalist types could have our own country, the rest of the world would destroy the biosphere.
It is much like two species in one, where two species would form, and have separate niches. One ruins its niche, and goes extinct, while the other is sustained and goes on. That is the way nature used to work, but this time it is a global niche and the ones that could have gone on sustainably are in the same niche being destroyed by the others.
Our moral attitude is that we keep up the good fight for green policies, education, and living, even though against enormous odds.

Much of New Zealand should not even be occupied by humans because of the extreme seismic zone. I think everywhere except Russia is overpopulated, and all the good places more so. The world economy should shift toward steady state environmental economics like in Herman Day's books.
I have been reminded that even leaving 80% of the fossil fuels in the ground will not contain temperature rise to within 2*C, and that it will probably go to 3.5*C with the above reductions. Passing the tipping point for a larger than PETM reaction and 10 times faster.
Business as usual is just not an option. Yet denialists are even more prevalent at various environmental sites, as if there is still an argument about the science and facts of AGW, and tipping points. Ignorance is actually increasing, while we fight harder for sanity, for educating more people, and for real action to stop HGHG output.

Ignorance and bad decisions keep this thread going into burial, where no one reads or cares. This whole topic should have its own section!! Instead the spam attackers take over!!!!

Originally Posted by Val

In "Storms of My Grandchildren" Hanson describes the fact that there is another .4*C of warming even if all fossil fuel burning stops immediately, and increasing over a 25 year time frame or so. I read reports from Russian and Alaskan Tundra scientists in 2009 that they considered the geometrically increasing methane releases "at the tipping point of a positive feedback loop", or self-release. The book "Thermageddon" I read in the mid 1990s was not believable to me, until 2009 and Hanson's book this year. Crossing the tipping point of tundra methane release causes even more warming, which after a delay of of about 40 years also heats up the ocean enough at the depths of methane hydrate/clathrate deposits to start them explosively releasing and warming further to deposits deeper, until there is a complete turnover, by 2300-2500. Too fast for most life to adapt, and creating the finish of the "Anthropocene Epoch Extinction Event".
Holding the warming to within 2*C is not probably good enough to stop the tundra self release mechanism when the world is at an average of +1*C right now (with another .4*C in store). The methane hydrate sensitivity is about 2*F or .9*C. The Norwegians reported ocean temperature rise of 1*F down to the clathrate deposit level of 400m, with slow releases dissolving.
Hanson says that if people burn up most of the rest of the oil and coal, this will progress to a runaway greenhouse effect that will permanently sterilize Earth. Most likely die-off will prevent that, and like he said, the ice age is over. There is more carbon in the form of methane than there was during the 10 times longer turnover event known as Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum caused by extended CO2 from vulcanism and physical disruption of oceanic hydrates by seismic activity. So, he says, this extinction event would be worse than then. He had originally called for a 90% reduction in HGHGs by 2016, and even then there would be another 1*F of warming. That was before it was fully realized how hard the Arctic would be hit by more warming and the tundra melting methane releases were known.
The general hope is that the tipping point won't be seriously breached and maybe it will stop at 2*C of average warming. The hope is that we won't have a total extinction event (geological scale) and adaptation can take place. It is a big gamble, and the forces of business as usual and ignorance are greater than the forces to stop most fossil fuel use. To most, the economy is more important than, to them, unknown effects in the future---let THEM deal with it. The economy is already beginning collapse from overpopulation, and cutting fossil fuel burning would leave billions without enough food and power. Kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, with only a thread of hope mitigation will occur.

Really, 90% not 80% of the world's remaining fossil fuels should be left in the ground ASAP, to guarantee the best chance for future generations. BS "news" robo spam keeps getting automatically put in burying extremely important articles like this one.
The world's economy is going to tank, so switch to steady state economics ASAP, and reduce population to sustainable before the sustainable level, now 1/2 to 3 billion, depending on living standard, reduces to zero(2140, with no changes, the world's soil will be 99% gone).