Over at the BBC there’s an interesting article on a IPCC report proposing “cheap ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others have all stated that extracting CO2 from the air will be needed if we are to bend the rising temperature curve before the end of this century.
These ideas are controversial with some seeing them as a distraction from the pressing business of limiting emissions of CO2.
But a new assessment from the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine says that some of these “negative emissions technologies” are ready to be deployed, on a large scale, right now.
The authors point to the fact that the US Congress has recently passed the 45Q tax rule, which gives a $50 tax credit for every tonne of CO2 that’s captured and stored. So their study highlights some technologies that are available at between $20 and $100 per tonne.
Among the proposals are:
- Increasing the amount of carbon stored in shoreline marshes
- Planting trees
- Forest management
- Changing agricultural practices
- Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
and not one of those proposals is draconian. As noted above there are people who oppose anything that isn’t draconian:
The report acknowledges that there is a significant “moral hazard” here.
“If you present the siren song of negative emissions, does it decrease humanity’s will to invest in the mitigation that’s needed to reduce emissions – this a concern we’ve discussed in every meeting,” said Prof Pacala.
What I think that people who oppose such measures are missing is that China and India will continue to use fossil fuels in increasing amount and there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it. Except not buy from China which, apparently, we’re not willing to do.
The wheels fell off the AGW bus in the summer of 2010.
Now, we have until the end of the century until the world is going to end, and apparently, we can keep using fossil fuels. Although, there may still be a cow fart crisis.
The tilt in the Earth’s axis causes the temperature differential between summer and winter. Likewise, the wobble in the Earth’s axis causes the temperature differential between glacial (ice age) and interglacial (warm) periods.
The glaciers have not returned to the last pre-glacial state, and technically, we are still in an ice age. Meaning, the Earth is still warming.
TastyBits = DENIER. Hope for your sake you are retired or self employed. (I’d help you but I’m scared too.)
I just go where the science leads, not the other way around.
4 of the 5 methods of carbon extraction discussed would necessitate severe restrictions on landowners, and mass confiscation of land from “developers”, ranchers and resource extraction industries. Anyone here willing to say they’re for it?
Tasty,
You are missing the difference between a forcibng and a feedback.
TastyBits: The wheels fell off the AGW bus in the summer of 2010.
None of the underlying science has changed. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface.
@Ben Wolf
I have gone over this multiple times. The amount of energy needed to accomplish what you think will occur is ginormous. The difference between ginormous and ginormous + 1 is still ginormous.
By the time the CO2 levels cause a significant level to raise the temperature, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a temperature increase because of the pressure. (Humans will have suffocated long before then.)
@Zachriel
None of the underlying science has changed. […]
You are quite right. The science has not changed since the last few nanoseconds of the Big Bang.
What has changed are the reasons why doomsday never arrives. How many times are we going to pass the point of return? When is the polar ice cap going to melt?
When the glaciers fully recede to the pre-ice age state, give me a call. Until then, we can debate how many polar bear farts it will take for the destruction of Earth.
Tasty Bits: By the time the CO2 levels cause a significant level to raise the temperature, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a temperature increase because of the pressure.
That is incorrect. This is easy to determine by calculating the Earth’s effective temperature. The graybody temperature of the Earth is about -18°C. The Earth’s surface is observed to be about +15°C. The difference is due to the greenhouse effect. If you increase the greenhouse effect by 10%, that will increase the surface temperature by about +3°C.
@Zachriel(s)
I am tired of going over this multiple times.
In order to have a stable temperature, you need a heatsink to store and release the thermal energy. Without a heatsink, the temperatures will fluctuate based upon the current conditions. The oceans (or any large body of water) are a good place to store thermal energy. Steel and concrete are also good, and this why large modern cities experience climate distortions.
Heating up the oceans is a slow process, and there are several mechanisms that can affect the process. The El Nino and La Nina affect the climate through heat transfer. The Gulf Stream is the same, and disruptions in it cause climate distortions.
For the last ten years, I have been ‘kicked-back with my feet up’, and nothing has changed. On the other hand, the AGW alarmists have had their doomsday dates come and go. At one time, trees and the oceans had no effect, but now, they miraculously do.
At the end of the century, the temperature will have risen to or past the point of no return. Again, doomsday will come and go, and again, the date will be pushed back once more. If you are constantly adjusting your model, your model is probably wrong.
You can believe what you want to believe. Next year, your model will again fail to predict reality, and you will have a new excuse.
TastyBits: Heating up the oceans is a slow process, and there are several mechanisms that can affect the process. The El Nino and La Nina affect the climate through heat transfer. The Gulf Stream is the same, and disruptions in it cause climate distortions.
These mechanisms generally just move heat around within the climate system. Not sure how this addresses anthropogenic global warming.
TastyBits: At one time, trees and the oceans had no effect, but now, they miraculously do.
Huh? The oceans have always been an important part of the climate system. Why would you think otherwise? As for trees, they fix carbon.
TastyBits: At the end of the century, the temperature will have risen to or past the point of no return.
There is little evidence that Earth will experience runaway global warming; however, significant global warming is already baked into the system, if that is what you mean.
@Zachriel(s)
The oceans do not just move heat around. The oceans store thermal energy, and this thermal energy is what you need to cause the warming that will cause doomsday.
Perhaps you are too young, but at one time, the oceans and trees were discounted as having any effect on the climate. When the AGW alarmists could not account for the missing heat from their models, the oceans became a factor. Likewise, trees were discounted.
I am glad to hear that you realize that the hockey stick was nonsense. Finally, we are making some progress.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
TastyBits: The oceans store thermal energy,
Sure, but do not change the effect due to greenhouse gases.
TastyBits: Perhaps you are too young, but at one time, the oceans and trees were discounted as having any effect on the climate. When the AGW alarmists could not account for the missing heat from their models, the oceans became a factor.
You are conflating climate change with global warming. The oceans are important to understanding climate — and always have been. Nevertheless, the overall heat of the Earth’s climate system is
increasing, something you have yet to address.
Ocean heat content