Skip to main content

Once all those fossil-fuels are burnt....





 In a conference call with reporters last month, NASA scientists expressed alarm about the pace at which both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice.

Now almost daily, scientists, around the world, come out with predictions of how climate change is already, and will at apace, disrupt our world in all manner of ways - floods, rising oceans, challenges to growing food, increased bush fires, etc. etc.    And then there have also been challenges to countries allowing the continued use of fossil fuels not being curtailed.       As against that politicians seem incapable, or unwilling, to take up the challenges confronting mankind - that is, our planet.

The New Yorker reports in "If We Burned All the Fossil Fuel in the World" on a new report on fossil-fuels.

"What would happen if we burned through all of the fossil-fuel resources known to exist? In a paper published today in the journal Science Advances, a quartet of German, American, and British researchers take on this question. The answer, not surprisingly, is grim. If mankind managed to combust the world’s known conventional deposits of coal, gas, and oil, and then went on to consume all of its “unconventional” ones, like tar-sands oil and shale gas, the result would be emissions on the order of ten trillion tons of carbon. Average global temperatures would soar, and the world would remain steamy for millennia. After ten thousand years, the planet would still be something like fourteen degrees Fahrenheit hotter than it is today. All of the world’s mountain glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet would melt away; Antarctica, too, would eventually become pretty much ice free. Sea levels would rise by hundreds of feet.

The new paper, a sort of climate modeller’s version of “Waterworld,” arrives amid a steady drip of bad news from the poles. Though so far we’ve succeeded in burning only a small fraction of the world’s known fossil-fuel resources—“resources” includes fuels that are currently considered too costly to extract—sea levels, it seems, are already rising quickly. They are climbing by 3.2 millimetres per year, which comes to an inch and a quarter a decade, and the rate appears to be accelerating. One of the major contributors to sea-level rise right now is what’s known as thermal expansion: as water warms, it takes up more space, so as sea temperatures increase the volume of the oceans also grows. Thermal expansion will continue, but in the coming decades its effect is likely to be dwarfed by the volume of water melting off the ice sheets. In a conference call with reporters last month, NASA scientists expressed alarm about the pace at which both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice. They suggested that the sea-level-rise forecasts in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—up to 3.2 feet by the end of the century—may soon be overtaken, or inundated, by events."







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as

Climate change: Well-organised hoax?

There are still some - all too sadly people with a voice who are listened to - who assert that climate change is a hoax. Try telling that to the people of Colorado who recently experienced horrendous bushfires, or the people of Croatia suffering with endless days of temps of 40 degrees (and not much less than 30 at night time) some 8-10 degrees above the norm. Bill McKibben, take up the issue of whether climate change is a hoax, on The Daily Beast : Please don’t sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax. The first to figure this out was Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in fact called it “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” apparently topping even the staged moon landing. But others have been catching on. Speaker of the House John Boehner pointed out that the idea that carbon dioxide is “harmful to the environment is almost comical.” The always cautious Mitt Romney scoffed at any damage too: “Scientists will fig