|
Post by swamprat on Jun 25, 2019 21:42:22 GMT
Ha! And I repeat, my President is not perfect. I don't have much to worry about because I'm a grumpy old man. I weep for my grandkids and great grandchildren.
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jun 26, 2019 18:02:09 GMT
My sentiments exactly. And it looks as if we will get Boris. He is no where near perfect. HAL
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 2, 2019 19:20:39 GMT
MIT Technology Review
We’ve already built too many power plants and cars to prevent 1.5 ˚C of warming Unless we begin shutting down coal and natural-gas facilities, and stop building new ones, we’re doomed to miss the targets of the Paris treaty.
by James Temple | Jul 1, 2019
A coal-fired power plant in Huai'an city, east China's Jiangsu province. ImagineChina via AP images
In 2010, scientists warned we’d already built enough carbon-dioxide-spewing infrastructure to push global temperatures up 1.3 ˚C, and stressed that the fossil-fuel system would only continue to expand unless “extraordinary efforts are undertaken to develop alternatives.”
Spoiler: They weren’t.
In a sequel to that paper published in Nature today, researchers found we’re now likely to sail well past 1.5 ˚C of warming, the aspirational limit set by the Paris climate accords, even if we don’t build a single additional power plant, factory, vehicle, or home appliance. Moreover, if these components of the existing energy system operate for as long as they have historically, and we build all the new power facilities already planned, they’ll emit about two thirds of the carbon dioxide necessary to crank up global temperatures by 2 ˚C.
If fractions of a degree don’t sound that dramatic, consider that 1.5 ˚C of warming could already be enough to expose 14% of the global population to bouts of severe heat, melt nearly 2 million square miles (5 million square kilometers) of Arctic permafrost, and destroy more than 70% of the world’s coral reefs. The hop from there to 2 ˚C may subject nearly three times as many people to heat waves, thaw nearly 40% more permafrost, and all but wipe out coral reefs, among other devastating effects, research finds.
The basic conclusion here is, in some ways, striking. We've already built a system that will propel the planet into the dangerous terrain that scientists have warned for decades we must avoid. This means that building lots of renewables and adding lots of green jobs, the focus of much of the policy debate over climate, isn’t going to get the job done.
We now have to ask a much harder societal question: How do we begin forcing major and expensive portions of existing energy infrastructure to shut down years, if not decades, before the end of its useful economic life?
Power plants can cost billions of dollars and operate for half a century. Yet the study notes that the average age of coal plants in China and India—two of the major drivers of the increase in “committed emissions” since the earlier paper—is about 11 and 12 years, respectively.
Other options for reducing climate impacts could include retrofitting existing energy infrastructure with systems that capture climate emissions, or offsetting emissions with tools that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But both of those are expensive as well.
Early retirements or pricey retrofits will almost certainly not happen without strict government mandates, significant carbon prices, or technological breakthroughs that either directly force the hands of energy companies or alter the economics enough to nudge them along.
“The industry has trillions of dollars of assets that will not go easy into that good night, as it were, so we’re going to have to figure out a way to hasten that,” says Steven Davis, an associate professor at the University of California, Irvine.
Davis worked on both papers, along with Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution. The lead author of the new study is Dan Tong, a postdoc in Davis’s research group at UC Irvine.
The scientists conducted the study by pulling together global data sets tracking major carbon dioxide sources like power plants, vehicles, industrial boilers, and residential appliances such as furnaces and stoves. Together, they’d pump out about 660 billion additional metric tons of greenhouse gases from this point forward, well above the 580 billion tons that mark the top end of the estimated range for limiting warming to 1.5 ˚C.
(The study doesn’t address non-energy greenhouse-gas sources, which include potent emissions from things like fertilizer and livestock. But those sources are already factored into the level of energy system emissions that will reach or exceed the UN climate panel’s “carbon budgets” for particular temperature levels, which were employed in the study.)
Meanwhile, the world is busy building more energy infrastructure. Power facilities already in the pipeline—“planned, permitted, or under construction”—would emit nearly 200 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, the researchers found. Most of those impending facilities are in China, India, and the rest of the developing world.
Emissions from existing systems plus these planned plants would add up to about 850 billion tons, closing in on the carbon budget for 2 ˚C, which runs between 1,170 and 1,500 billion tons.
The tiny bright spot here is that it seems we haven’t already built or planned enough energy infrastructure to exceed that more dangerous warming threshold (unless these systems operate at higher rates or for longer durations than they have in the past). But there’s little indication that nations, particularly in the developing world, will suddenly stop building fossil-fuel plants after completing what’s in the pipeline.
www.technologyreview.com/s/613900/weve-already-built-too-many-power-plants-and-cars-to-prevent-15-c-of-warming/?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=a651c61001-briefing-dy-20190702&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-a651c61001-43274133
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 19:35:59 GMT
Nothing we do will affect climate change. The political left have adapted this as a get vote slogan, which seems to be quite effective although it's just political rhetoric. Don't be sucked into this. There are many scientific arguments in support of this,(humans can not affect climate change) but I'm not going to post as I already know this argument.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 3, 2019 16:23:29 GMT
Let me be clear about this. Anyone who thinks some corporations, organizations, and politicians are NOT using talk of, and the distortions of, the human civilization's impact on climate change for their own financial and political gain, is naive. However, IMHO, anyone who does NOT think our civilization IS having an impact on climate change is ignoring the laws of physics. Study the science of the impact of carbon on the atmosphere. Study the science of the loss of forestation's impact on the atmosphere. And then, do the math.
Physics World
Pushing Renewables Ahead 03 Jul 2019 | Dave Elliott
Meeting a net-zero emissions global target by mid-century — as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – needs accelerated innovation. But the IEA says that in 2017 only 4 of 38 energy technologies and sectors were on track to meet long-term climate, energy access and air pollution goals. In the UK, moving from the existing target of cutting annual greenhouse gas emissions by 80% towards a net zero emissions target by 2050, as now agreed by the UK government, certainly implies a greater role for key technologies.
"Moving from invention to widespread deployment can take many decades, yet only around three decades remain to meet the net zero emissions goal."
Against this backdrop, the Aldersgate Group commissioned Vivid Economics and the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) to look at conditions and policy approaches that could speed up the cycle of innovation to achieve a net zero target. The resulting Accelerating innovation towards net zero report sees innovation as “learning that occurs during R&D, demonstration and the early stages of deployment”, so that the lessons drawn from its case studies are about ways to accelerate learning related to deployment, as well as during R&D. But learning takes time: “moving from invention to widespread deployment can take many decades, yet only around three decades remain to meet the net zero emissions goal”. It also needs consistent support, as indicated by the case study on wind power.
Lessons from wind
Drawing on a comparison of wind development in Denmark and the UK, the Aldersgate report says that “Feed-In Tariffs [FiTs] for wind projects were vital to move towards industrial-scale deployment”, as happened initially in Denmark and then massively in Germany. It notes a little lamely that “the UK was not at the forefront of the early development of onshore wind turbines”. Well, yes, the UK resisted FiTs for a long time, right up to 2008, and then only, from 2010 onwards, for small, mostly photovoltaic (PV) solar, projects. But it’s not quite true that the UK was a laggard in wind engineering terms. A 100 kW unit was built on the Orkney archipelago in 1955, while in the 1980s Howden, based in Renfrew, Scotland, developed a pioneering 330 kW machine; California installed 26 MW-worth of the kit in 1984. And in 1987, the UK government backed a very large 3 MW Wind Energy Group project on the Orkneys, as well as smaller ones elsewhere, including a novel 100 kW vertical axis device. But it is true that nothing much came of any of them, in part since there was no UK market for wind projects. In the 1990s, when a UK market was created via the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and then, in the 2000s, the Renewables Obligation (RO) system, the machines for the UK’s wind farms had to be imported, mainly from Denmark and Germany.
As this suggests and as the report notes, it is vital to provide support through market creation policies and investment to help technologies go from early deployment to widespread commercialization. “Such policies, from the early voluntary power purchase agreements in Denmark, through to feed-in tariffs in numerous countries including the UK’s Contract for Difference [CfD] auctions, are crucial to help support technologies in early or pre-commercialisation stages,” the report continues. It may be a stretch to include market-based CfDs along with fixed-price FiTs, but it is true that, while FiTs helped wind expand in Denmark and in Germany especially, of late market-based CfDs have helped offshore wind expand to near 8 GW in the UK, though with mostly imported technology.
Banks to the rescue
Direct funding has also helped. “Investment support from governments or government-supported funding agencies has also been important in providing loan capital or loans to invest in projects where the market was not yet sufficiently confident due to the new technologies involved,” says the report, adding that the UK Green Investment Bank (GIB) — now known as the Green Investment Group — invested £1.6 bn in the offshore wind sector, across nine projects with a combined total capacity of 3.2 GW. It also set up and manages the UK Green Investment Offshore Wind Fund, which has a portfolio of six projects with a combined capacity of 1.45 GW. “There is strong evidence that the GIB and European Investment Bank (EIB) provided important support to offshore wind deployment,” the report continues. “They did so by: absorbing early deployment and technology risk and filling investment gaps, allowing the private sector to invest; buying equity stakes in existing offshore wind farms, allowing developers to “recycle and reinvest capital in new projects”; and using their investments to support the development of innovative financial products such as portfolio aggregation, which attracted new investors to the sector.”
"Overall bills need not rise as a result of climate policy."
The GIB and the EIB were evidently vital — pity then that the GIB was sold off and presumably the UK won’t have access to the EIB post-Brexit. But life goes on. And the government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is quite optimistic about the costs of making the energy transition. It says that, while it will need increased investment, that would be offset by reduced fuel costs, so “overall bills need not rise as a result of climate policy”.
A future for CCUS?
The UKERC/Vivid Economics report also looks to Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS). “New markets must now be created to fully commercialise early-stage low-carbon technologies,” it says. “Market creation mechanisms to be considered include CfDs for power sector CCUS and obligations or incentives for fossil fuel using industries to sequester their CO2 emissions.”
That assumes that CCUS has a future. Although the Committee on Climate Change also seems keen and hopeful, it does admit that it would require “both increased upfront spend and higher fuel costs”. It notes that what was then called CCS, along with nuclear and heat pumps, played significant roles in its earlier plans, but says that they have all under-performed “as projects have been delayed and costs have overrun (e.g. nuclear) or as policy has failed to drive take-up effectively (e.g. heat pumps and carbon capture and storage, CCS)”.
As implied by the current use of the label “CCUS” instead of “CCS”, the emphasis these days is moving away from just CCS to CCU, and the production of synfuels by reacting carbon dioxide — captured directly from the air or from power plants — with hydrogen, perhaps produced electrolytically, using electricity from renewables or nuclear.
However, CCUS “is not proceeding on the innovation pathway required to meet the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario (2018)”, notes the UKERC/Vivid Economics report. “While incentives have been implemented in the US, UK, Canada, and Norway, projects have stalled or not translated into a pipeline of future projects. A common feature of these cases is a stop-start approach to demonstration, which has been ineffective in the context of promoting CCUS deployment.” It suggests using an infrastructure demonstration approach to move things on. That seems a very long shot.
Done fully, “CCUS would involve the construction of a large-scale infrastructure which would be shared by numerous point sources and storage points”, according to the UKERC/Vivid Economics report. “It is instructive that most comparable national level infrastructure systems have been constructed under the guidance of national level coordinating bodies, such as the Central Electricity Board in the case of the original electricity transmission network in the UK, and the Gas Council for the natural gas grid.” Is it really worth it? Just to be able to continue to use fossil fuels? What’s more, when we burn CCU-derived synfuels, we get the CO2 back again. It seems like a case of costly diminishing returns. Why not use the green power, and the green hydrogen, directly? Nevertheless, some UK funding is being provided for CCUS work and the debate continues, with Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) also being talked up.
Up in the air
That’s interesting, but the proportion of CO2 in the air is — still! — only around 0.039%, so to capture a ton of CO2 you have to chemically process over 2500 tons of air and then store the CO2 somewhere. Doing all this needs energy. You could use PV solar. But trees/plants do all this for free. Of course, some are still keen on biomass energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as another negative carbon option. To have much impact that would involve a lot of land-use for biomass and, as with DACCS, a lot of carbon storage space. In terms of CO2 sequestration, it might be better just to plant more trees and as far as energy generation goes, expand renewables fast. And the UKERC/Vivid Economics report does offer some ideas about how to accelerate renewables. So does the recent Climate Manifesto from Greenpeace. In my next post I'll look at some of the problems efforts like this might face in relation to curtailment.
Dave Elliott is emeritus professor of technology policy at the Open University, UK, and writes a regular column for Physics World on sustainable energy technologies.
physicsworld.com/a/pushing-renewables-ahead/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 19:02:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 4, 2019 0:46:08 GMT
Very true. Although Bob Carter died in January of 2016, he was well known, particularly in the United Kingdom. While some folks embraced his climate assessment, many others in the science community disagreed with it. I stay with my own assessment. Again, look at the physics, do the math. Our grandchildren will know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by moksha on Jul 4, 2019 11:05:17 GMT
Historic Hail storm and other stuff
.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 6, 2019 22:23:34 GMT
The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted By Jeanna Bryner, Live Science Managing Editor | April 4, 2012
Dynamic Earth
Earth is a dynamic sphere and, it turns out, so is the planet's climate, otherwise known as the long-term trend of global weather conditions. It's no wonder questions and myths abound about what exactly is going on in the atmosphere, in the oceans and on land. How can we tell our orb is actually warming and whether humans are to blame? Here's a look at what scientists know and don't know about some seemingly murky statements on Earth's climate.
Climate has changed before
Myth: Even before SUVs and other greenhouse-gas spewing technologies, Earth's climate was changing, so humans can't be responsible for today's global warming.
Science: Climate changes in the past suggest that our climate reacts to energy input and output, such that if the planet accumulates more heat than it gives off global temperatures will rise. It's the driver of this heat imbalance that differs.
Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
... but it's cold outside!
Myth: The planet can't be warming when my front yard is covered in several feet of snow. … This winter has been one of the chilliest, how is that possible in a warming world?
Science: Local temperatures taken as individual data points have nothing to do with the long-term trend of global warming. These local ups and downs in weather and temperature can hide a slower-moving uptick in long-term climate. To get a real bead on global warming, scientists rely on changes in weather over a long period of time. To find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. Looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.
For instance, a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2009, found that daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the prior decade across the continental United States.
Climate is cooling
Myth: Global warming has stopped and the Earth has begun to cool.
Science: The last decade, 2000-2009, was the hottest on record, according to Skeptical Science. Big blizzards and abnormally chilly weather often raise the question: How can global warming be occurring when it's snowing outside? Global warming is compatible with chilled weather. "For climate change, it is the long-term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming," according to Skeptical Science.
The sun is to blame
Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.
Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)
A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm. The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.
Not everyone agrees
Myth: There's no consensus on whether the planet is actually warming.
Science: About 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-made global warming is happening. "In the scientific field of climate studies — which is informed by many different disciplines — the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change — and that's nearly all of them," according to Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to explaining the science of global warming.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant
Myth: Rick Santorum, GOP presidential nominee, summed up this argument in the news when he said: "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is," he told the Associated Press.
Science: While it is true that plants photosynthesize, and therefore take up carbon dioxide as a way of forming energy with the help of the sun and water, this gas is both a direct pollutant (think acidification of oceans) and more importantly is linked to the greenhouse effect. When heat energy gets released from Earth's surface, some of that radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases like CO2; the effect is what makes our planet comfy temperature-wise, but too much and you get global warming.
Climate scientists are conspiring to push "global warming"
Myth: Thousands of emails between climate scientists leaked in November 2009 (dubbed Climategate) revealed a cover-up of data that conflicted with research showing the Earth is warming.
Science: Yes, a hacker did access and release emails and documents from the University of East Anglia server. But there was no cover-up; a number of investigations were launched, including two independent reviews set up by the university: the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) and the independent Scientific Appraisal Panel (SAP). The investigations cleared the researchers involved with the e-mails of scientific misconduct, and found no evidence of a cover-up.
Don't worry, it's not that bad
Myth: Some have pointed to human history as evidence that warm periods are good for people, while the cold, unstable stints have been catastrophic.
Science: Climate scientists say any positives are far outweighed by the negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, human health, the economy and the environment. For instance, according to one 2007 study, a warming planet may mean an increased growing season in Greenland; but it also means water shortages, more frequent and more intense wildfires and expanding deserts.
Antarctica is gaining ice
Myth: Ice covering much of Antarctica is expanding, contrary to the belief that the ice cap is melting due to global warming.
Science: The arguments that ice is expanding on Antarctica omit the fact that there's a difference between land ice and sea ice, climate scientists say. "If you are talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, we expect some gain in accumulation in the interior due to warmer, more moisture-laden air, but increased calving/ice loss at the periphery, primarily due to warming southern oceans," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. The net change in ice mass is the difference between this accumulation and peripheral loss. "Models traditionally have projected that this difference doesn't become negative (i.e. net loss of Antarctic ice sheet mass) for several decades," Mann said, adding that detailed gravimetric measurements, which looks at changes in Earth's gravity over spots to estimate, among other things, ice mass. These measurements, Mann said, suggest the Antarctic ice sheet is already losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.
Now for sea ice, this type of ice is influenced by year-to-year changes in wind directions and changes in ocean currents. For sea ice, it's tricky to identify a clear trend, Mann said.
Climate models are unreliable
Myth: Models are full of "fudge factors" or assumptions that make them fit with data collected in today's climate; there's no way to know if those same assumption can be made in a world with increased carbon dioxide.
Science: Models have successfully reproduced global temperatures since 1900, by land, in the air and the oceans. "Models are simply a formalization of our best understanding of the processes that govern the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice sheets, etc.," Mann said. He added that certain processes, such as how clouds will respond to changes in the atmosphere and the warming or cooling effect of clouds, are uncertain and different modeling groups make different assumptions about how to represent these processes.
Even so, Mann said, certain predictions are based on physics and chemistry that are so fundamental, such as the atmospheric greenhouse effect, that the resulting predictions — that surface temperatures should warm, ice should melt and sea level should rise — are robust no matter the assumptions.
www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 6, 2019 22:29:02 GMT
Alaska Is Hotter Than NYC. Here's Why. By Jeanna Bryner, Editor-in-Chief, Live Science | July 5, 2019
For the first time in recorded history, Anchorage, Alaska, reached 90 degrees F (32 degrees Celsius).
That sweltering temperature, recorded yesterday (July 4), meant that the normally snowbound city, which is just 370 miles (595 kilometers) from the Arctic Circle, was hotter than New York City. (NYC hit 85 F yesterday, according to timeanddate.com.)
The previous record-breaking temperature in Anchorage was 85 F (29 C), which occurred June 14, 1969, according to KTUU, an Anchorage broadcast station affiliated with NBC News. Yesterday's 90 F (32 C) was recorded at Merrill Field station in Anchorage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The cause of the sweltering weather in Alaska? An intense high-pressure system, which the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang termed a "heat dome," has parked itself over the region. The heat is not expected to let up for days, with the weather gang forecasting above-normal temperatures through July 8.
From a broader perspective, above-average temperatures in Alaska are partly due to a loss of sea ice in the Arctic and the concurrent ocean warming there, Rick Thoman, a climate specialist with the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, told France's AFP in March. At the time, Alaska was experiencing two months of record-shattering temperatures.
Climate change is having disproportionate effects in the Arctic, which is heating up twice as fast as the rest of Earth, Live Science previously reported. That's because of a positive feedback loop there: Sea ice and snow reflect a lot of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere. But as more of those reflective surfaces melt to reveal the darker (light-absorbing) water beneath, more heat gets locked into the water rather than bouncing back to space, making it hotter … and causing more melt and more warming.
www.livescience.com/65877-anchorage-alaska-record-breaking-heat.html
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 7, 2019 16:06:48 GMT
And the message is even in the comics.....
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jul 7, 2019 19:45:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 19, 2019 16:00:26 GMT
physicsworld
CLIMATE RESEARCH UPDATE Climate crisis needs radical food changes 19 Jul 2019
by Tim Radford
To feed 9 billion people by 2050, and keep planet Earth from overheating, will mean massive and radical food changes – and not just in the way food is grown.
To contain global temperatures to no more than 2°C above the average for most of human history will require humanity to change its diet, contain its appetite and reform the entire system of food production and distribution.
This is the verdict of the latest study of the challenge set in Paris in 2015, when 195 nations promised to limit global warming – driven by profligate use of fossil fuels and by the conversion of forest, grassland and wetlands into commercial use – to “well below” 2°C by 2100.
Researchers report in the journal Sustainability that they looked at 160 studies and analyses of global agriculture and food systems and most closely at the world’s smallholders and markets that sustain as many as 2.5 billion people, mostly in the developing world.
Farming’s massive impact
Small farmers account for about a third of global agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions, but these include also many of the people most vulnerable to the coming climate crisis, which is likely to put harvests at hazard on a global scale.
Agriculture, together with forestry and changes in land use, accounts for a quarter of all the carbon dioxide, methane and oxides of nitrogen that fuel global warming.
Just on its own, the action of growing grain, fruit and vegetables or feeding grazing animals accounts for no more than 12% of global warming, but a third of all the food that leaves the farm gate is wasted before it arrives on the supper table.
This is enough to provide 8% of the world’s emissions, and if just one fourth of the waste could be saved, that would be enough to feed 870 million people for a year.
Agronomists, crop researchers, climate scientists and ministry planners know of many steps that can be taken to reduce the greenhouse impact of agriculture: even under the most hopeful forecasts, these are likely to be deployed slowly.
The researchers see reductions in food loss as a “big opportunity” that will benefit farmers and consumers as well as reduce emissions. A more challenging problem is to change global appetites: the meat and dairy business accounts for about 18% of all human-triggered emissions, counting the clearance of forests and the impact of changes in the way land is used to feed the demand for meat, milk, butter and cheese.
A shift to plant-based diets would save on land and water and deliver more and healthier meals and permit more forest restoration.
“If you think about the two degree increase, efforts need to go beyond the agriculture sector,” said Anna Maria Loboguerrero, of the climate change, agriculture and food security programme of CGIAR, once known as the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, who led the study.
Drastic cuts needed
“This means reducing emissions by stopping deforestation, decreasing food loss and waste, reducing supply chain emissions and rethinking human diets, if we really want to get on track to that target.”
The researchers acknowledge that what they propose will constrain farm choices and increase costs. But a second study reports once again that the health benefits of immediate, dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions will save lives, improve human health, and offset the immediate costs of containing planetary heating and adapting to the climate crisis.
“The global health benefits from climate policy could reach trillions of dollars annually, but will importantly depend on the air quality policies that nations adopt independently of climate change,” they write in the journal Nature Communications.
And Mark Budolfson of the University of Vermont, one of the authors, said: “We show the climate conversation doesn’t need to be about the current generation investing in the further future. By making smart investments in climate action, we can save lives now through improved air quality and health.”
physicsworld.com/a/climate-crisis-needs-radical-food-changes/
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 24, 2019 0:58:48 GMT
Source: Knowledge is Power.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 24, 2019 14:44:09 GMT
June 2019 hottest on record for globePosted by Eleanor Imster in EARTH | July 24, 2019
Last month was the planet’s hottest June in NOAA’s climate record, which dates back to 1880. Also last month, Antarctic sea ice coverage shrank to new record low.
An annotated map of the world showing notable climate events that occurred around the world in June 2019. Image via NOAA. Find out more at:
www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201906
According to a NOAA report published on July 18, scorching temperatures made June 2019 the hottest June for the globe in the agency’s 140-year global temperature dataset. The year-to-date temperature for 2019 was the second warmest January–June on record. And for the second month in a row, warmth brought Antarctic sea-ice coverage to a new low.
The average global temperature in June was 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (.95 degrees Celsius) above the 20th-century average of 59.9 degrees F (15.5 degrees C), making it the hottest June in the 140-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
Image via NOAA.
Nine of the 10 warmest Junes have occurred since 2010. June 1998 is the only year from the previous century that’s among the 10 warmest Junes on record (the eighth warmest June on record).
June 2019 also marks the 43rd consecutive June and the 414th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.
Image via NOAA
Average Antarctic sea-ice coverage was 8.5 percent below the 1981-2010 average – the smallest on record for June. Average Arctic sea ice coverage was 10.5 percent below average – the second-smallest on record for June.
Bottom line: According to NOAA, June 2019 was the planet’s hottest June in the climate record, which dates back to 1880.
earthsky.org/earth/june-2019-hottest-on-record-for-globe
|
|