Thank you for introducing me to Joe Romm. As I breathe Canadian wildfire smoke this morning and consider the carbon offset scam, I feel a bit ridiculous as I write an article about degrowth. Thank you for the good work, Chris.
First of all, "Net Zero" is a clcver ploy to imply actual zero emissions and is a grand hoax, supreme greenwashing.
Talk (which remains persistent) of limiting "global heating" to 1.5°C is absolute nonsense, since the eventual equalibrium temperature based on PRESENT CO2 atmospheric levels is 10°C. If we want to reduce that level to 1.5°C we need to drastically boost aerosols (now contributing to about 8°C cooling) and/or promote negative emissions (very expensive). See
As I have said before, every carbon pricing/offsetting scheme is a scam because it is impossible to balance that set of books. Oxygen pricing, on the other hand, does fund poorer countries (ecojustice) for mitigation and adaptation. See [ https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/can-oxygen-pricing-help-save-the ]
"Some people on Twitter interpreted the statement: 'Equilibrium global warming including slow
feedbacks for today’s human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing (4.1 W/m2) is 10°C, reduced to 8°C by today’s aerosols' in our draft paper 'Global Warming in the Pipeline' as indicating that the world is committed to warming of 10°C. The word 'committed' or 'commit' does not appear in our paper."
Thank you, Chris, but the point of your comment is...____?
Follow that May 25 link back to the original paper. Equilibrium means what is already in the pipeline from past and ongoing emissions plus slow feedbacks will given time, be responsible for 10C of warming, most since PETM (Permian-Eocene Thermal Maximum). This climate forcing (Watts per square meter) is being ameliorated by the levels of aerosols. Therefore, Dr. Hansen's "Faustian Bargain" - if we reduce air pollution, we inadvertently increase effective warming. This has been revealed recently by the reduction of sulfurous fuels in world shipping. Now on top of that, add proposed seabed mining, which could stir up seabed methyl hydrates (well ahead of their eventual release by our heating of the oceans) and then you will see the REAL global warming. So why get into semantics?
Thank you for introducing me to Joe Romm. As I breathe Canadian wildfire smoke this morning and consider the carbon offset scam, I feel a bit ridiculous as I write an article about degrowth. Thank you for the good work, Chris.
Great article, thanks!
First of all, "Net Zero" is a clcver ploy to imply actual zero emissions and is a grand hoax, supreme greenwashing.
Talk (which remains persistent) of limiting "global heating" to 1.5°C is absolute nonsense, since the eventual equalibrium temperature based on PRESENT CO2 atmospheric levels is 10°C. If we want to reduce that level to 1.5°C we need to drastically boost aerosols (now contributing to about 8°C cooling) and/or promote negative emissions (very expensive). See
[ http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/ElNino2023.14June2023.pdf ]
As I have said before, every carbon pricing/offsetting scheme is a scam because it is impossible to balance that set of books. Oxygen pricing, on the other hand, does fund poorer countries (ecojustice) for mitigation and adaptation. See [ https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/can-oxygen-pricing-help-save-the ]
But for years Joe Romm has rejected this idea.
In a May 2023 report, James Hansen writes that,
"Some people on Twitter interpreted the statement: 'Equilibrium global warming including slow
feedbacks for today’s human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing (4.1 W/m2) is 10°C, reduced to 8°C by today’s aerosols' in our draft paper 'Global Warming in the Pipeline' as indicating that the world is committed to warming of 10°C. The word 'committed' or 'commit' does not appear in our paper."
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/CommittedWarming.25May2023.pdf
Thank you, Chris, but the point of your comment is...____?
Follow that May 25 link back to the original paper. Equilibrium means what is already in the pipeline from past and ongoing emissions plus slow feedbacks will given time, be responsible for 10C of warming, most since PETM (Permian-Eocene Thermal Maximum). This climate forcing (Watts per square meter) is being ameliorated by the levels of aerosols. Therefore, Dr. Hansen's "Faustian Bargain" - if we reduce air pollution, we inadvertently increase effective warming. This has been revealed recently by the reduction of sulfurous fuels in world shipping. Now on top of that, add proposed seabed mining, which could stir up seabed methyl hydrates (well ahead of their eventual release by our heating of the oceans) and then you will see the REAL global warming. So why get into semantics?
Now look at this study published July 4: "Risks of synchronized low yields are underestimated in climate and crop model projections " https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38906-7