How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Burnt Hill]

You also buy that burning a tree that is fully mature and inspiring and sequestering carbon more efficiently than we can do and at zero expense, but just burning it enough to eliminate its nitrogen content and leaving only carbonized wood that is not very useful to developing microbial communities that help enrich the soil, and then spread that charcoal over fields and call it sequestration. Then plant a tree and wait 30 to 50 years for it to achieve the same efficient transpiration of the one just burned. But to turn that tree into charcoal, you must spend money on a supplemental fuel, like natural gas, (methane) and millions more to build it and millions more to man and maintain it. Yes, you've done well to raise everyone's taxes in the community chosen to host this nightmare, but you've achieved nothing insofar as combating climate change; in fact you've increased aerosol particulate pollutants that warm our climate most expensively.

No I don't.
And, no I haven't.

That is not an accurate description of what biomass is, and how it is converted into energy, either.

This is not at all about "burning mature trees". Not even close.

We really don't have time to invest in a variety of thermal technologies, which will take 10 to 20 years to build a full scale mock-up and to get it operating

So when will that "Revolution" be happening?
Thermal technologies are being invested in, and built right now,
some of that technology can be tweaked right now.

with pure bioenergy systems being otherwise preferred.

Yes, that is a big part of the point.

[Iamwhomiam]

No I don't.
And, no I haven't.

You are advocating investing our tax dollars in a foolish, inefficient technology that exists only on paper.

That is not an accurate description of how what biomass is, and how it is converted into energy, either.

Yes, it is, on both counts.

This is not at all about "burning mature trees". Not even close.

Yes, indeed it is. Not giant logs, though, but certainly ground up logs, the dust from which creates explosive conditions.

You should really educate yourself about the technology being promoted, the unproven technology of gasification of biomass, before espousing it. I have been an expert on waste management including various thermal technologies, though I am without a degree in engineering or forestry. I have not actively worked as an advocate for communities opposing such developments in more than 3 years and all my files pertinent to conducting an intelligent discussion on the topic, those from 2010 to 2013 are lost in my fried mac's HD. My failing mind prevents me from recalling any in detail, but I have hundreds of documents provided by thermal technology developers detailing their operation and their efficacy as well as their pollutants. The only known gasification unit being developed was closer to you, BH, than to me. It has never been scaled up from a small "working" model to full-size and never in my knowledge has it operated successfully for one 24 hour stretch. I believe the first gasification facility to be built in the US has been abandoned by its promoters.

Biomass comes in many forms, from simple wood burning stoves to more modern catalytic wood pellet stoves and furnaces so popular today in Great Britain. These have been scaled up in size to produce electricity. the demand for fuel is astounding.Our south eastern forests are being decimated at an alarming rate for no better reason than to turn mature trees into wood pellets. Track the market and see for yourself.

These technologies are more scam than solution, but by the time communities realize their folly for having invested so deeply into their future finances, they're on the verge of bankruptcy. 20 to 25 year contracts with municipally guaranteed amount of daily feed. Fall short and you'll pay the developer to makeup for the shortfall.

You will not see any environmentally sound solutions coming from the forestry industry or their offspring.

Wood is biomass as garbage is biomass, they are both organic materials that can be oxidized. Some people are led to believe removing understorey growth is beneficial to the health of a forest. In fact, the past year California put forth a proposal to clear forests of their undergrowth and deadfall to diminish the quantity of water it all retains in order to increase runoff which will find its way into underground aquifers.

I can offer you a list of names of experts and provide you with their contact information, if you would like me to. These are mostly scientists, engineers and professors whose opinions are highly regarded as experts in their field. I am also familiar with many who monitor forestry around the world and will share their names and contact info with you as well, though biomass was not my main focus, but seen as a sub-category of incineration not being developed during the 20+ years I've focused upon environmental issues.

Many of you know of Dr. Paul Connett, a personal friend, founder of the Fluoride Action Network, and founder of American Environmental Health Studies who works to curtail fluoride usage in public water supplies and products. Many who know Paul or his wife, Ellen, who originated WasteNot, a newsletter detailing environmental problems and the efforts to lessen pollution, which was my first introduction to environmentalism while transitioning away from social activism. I've earlier mentioned Dr. Neil Seldman, founder of the Institute for Local Self Reliance.

Around the world, Paul, a now retired chemistry professor, is well known as an expert on thermal technologies. Neil is also such an expert whose focus is sustainability.

You could write to someone squarely focused upon biomass, Attorney and founder of the Energy Justice Network.

Please write to one or all of these men and ask them your questions about thermal technologies such as that you have brought to our attention. Feel free to mention me by name or choose not to. You can look to GAIA for more information; Global Alliance for Alternatives to Incineration.

But please don't try to sell anyone on such a foolish technology without understanding it or how it works and pollutes and how it creates energy or the resources such a technology demands materially and financially. And while it might promote discussion, words can be another waste of time if what you are promoting is theoretical and not functional.

I believe the promoters of the technology at the heart of this discussion are trying to capture part of a market now dominated by older, more conventional biomass thermal facilities.

https://www.google.com/search?q=biomass+plant+explosion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8



Honestly, BH, I think you know I respect you, but this is entirely the wrong thing to ask after I had already announced the revolution's progress over this past year:

Solar Power Capacity Tops Coal for the First Time Ever

China alone installed two wind turbines per hour and 500,000 solar panels a day last year.

Solar power now accounts for more installed capacity than any other form of electricity generation, according to new data out Tuesday.

“About half a million solar panels were installed every day around the world last year,”

[Burnt Hill]

This is not an argument against Solar Power.

It is not about "burning mature trees", or wood pellets.

It is not about gasification.

Biomass Biochar Energy Production is not unproven, exists in real life, and is underutilized.

And the technology is improving faster than the market is growing.

The IPCC may not be perfect, but it is the leader in promoting the knowledge necessary to fight runaway global temperatures, and needs to add BBEPS to its repertoire.

Global Biochar Market Projected to Reach $260.0 Million by 2020, Growing at 14.5% CAGR

Deerfield Beach, FL -- (SBWIRE) -- 07/18/2016 -- Zion Research has published a new report titled "Biochar (Pyrolysis, Gasification, Hydrothermal and Others Technology) Market for Agriculture, Water & Waste Water Treatment and Other Applications: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2014 - 2020" According to the report, the global biochar market was valued at approximately USD 260.0 million in 2014 and is expected to reach approximately USD 585.0 million by 2020, growing at a CAGR of around 14.5% between 2015 and 2020. In terms of volume, global biochar market stood at 100 kilo tons in 2014.

Biochar is a fine-grained carbon rich product obtained by heating organic material such as wood, manure or leaves under conditions of no oxygen. Biochar can enhance soils, sequester carbon as well as provide useable energy. Biochar also have tendency to filter and retain nutrients from percolating soil water. Pyrolysis, hydrothermal conversion and gasification are simple and efficient technologies for transforming different biomass feedstocks into renewable energy products. Furthermore, biochar has ability to produce usable energy during its production while concurrently creating a carbon product, which provides sequester or store carbon and improve agriculture and other processes.

Browse the full "Biochar (Pyrolysis, Gasification, Hydrothermal and Others Technology) Market for Agriculture, Water & Waste Water Treatment and Other Applications: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Segment, Trends and Forecast, 2014 – 2020" report at http://www.marketresearchstore.com/repo ... ket-z43492

Based on technology, biochar market can be segmented as pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal and others. The pyrolysis technology is largest segment accounted for significant share and expected to witness fastest growth at a CAGR of over 10.0% in terms of revenue from 2015 to 2020. Gasification technology does not create stable biochar which can be used in agriculture for soil amendment. This technology segment is expected to decline its market share in the years to come.
On the basis of application, the biochar market has been segmented into agriculture, water & waste water treatment and others. Agriculture was a major application segment of biochar market and accounted over 80% share of the global demand in 2014 and is expected to continue its dominance in global market over the forecast period. Water & waste water treatment is another major application segment and expected to exhibit significant growth on account of growing hygiene awareness and effective water infrastructure.

With over 50% shares in total volume consumption, North America was the largest market. North America followed by Europe and Asia Pacific region. Europe was the second largest market for biochar and accounted for around 25% shares in total volume consumption in 2014. Asia Pacific is the third largest market accounted for the significant share of total market in 2014. Latin America and Meddle East & Africa are also expected to grow at a moderate pace.

-

[Burnt Hill]

U.S Biochar market - strict CO2 emission regulations and increased usage in energy production to boost consumption of Biochar in the U.S.

Thursday, Jul 07, 2016
With many untapped application areas and the rising awareness about the several benefits, demand for biochar in the U.S market will exhibit an impressive double-digit growth through 2014-2020, points out Transparency Market Research. The U.S. Biochar market is expected to exhibit a 19.0% CAGR and rise from a valuation of US$1.4 mn in 2013 to US$4.9 mn by 2020. Volume-wise, the market is projected to exhibit a 24.3% CAGR over the same period. As a result, the market, which totaled 2.2 kilo tons in 2013, is expected to rise to 10.0 kilo tons by 2020.

Biochar is a valuable soil enhancer that can be used to hold carbon and improve fertility of arable soil. With large-scale usage, it can aid in significant reduction of carbon emission from natural as well as industrial sources. Biochar can also be used for enhancing the quality of water as it can absorb agrochemicals and soil nutrients that otherwise get mixed with usable water and render it polluted. Biochar can also be used as a fuel.

Get Free Research PDF for more Professional and Technical industry insights:

http://www.transparencymarketresearch.c ... ep_id=3636


The excellent growth prospects of biochar are majorly supported by its desired use as a carbon sink owing to its carbon sequestration ability. Use of biochar as a way to reduce carbon levels on the environment makes for one of the most common applications of the material and is expected to provide a huge boost to the U.S. biochar market over the coming years. Exploring the uses of biochar in the fields of wastewater management and energy production is one of the most lucrative business opportunities in the U.S. biochar market. However, presently the research and development in these sectors is restricted to government financing and will require persistent efforts from biochar companies in making the most of the untapped opportunities.

The U.S. market for biochar is restrained majorly by the lack of consumer awareness regarding the effectiveness of biochar and the high production costs of biochar. These challenges can be resolved through strategies aimed at making general consumers more aware of the several benefits of the material and the entry of new companies in the marketplace. A larger competitive landscape will help the U.S. biochar market develop healthy competition, boost innovation in terms of production techniques, and bring down production prices.

[Iamwhomiam]

You are completely changing the topic. You're advocating for something that does not exist in working form.

I will not address your irrelevant comments about biochar.

Like I said, you're attempting to have a discussion about something you know little about. If there was technical information available on this technology I could really critique it, but there's not - it's a trade secret. Only once a developer decides to invest and build one, which would trigger an environmental review that would demand details from the developer not now available.

If you wrote to any of the experts I suggested for you to do, you might believe them over me.Once the unit reaches temperature, the flue gases are separated through a gasification process.

Why waste money trying to capture carbon by burning carbon? Where will they plant the trees? footprint of harvest?

There are better techniques readily available that can permanently sequester carbon chemically, without partial combustion of a fossil fuel. Spend the money on proven technologies that reduce carbon emissions rather than experiment with taxpayer money, like wind, solar and tidal.

[Burnt Hill]

I am addressing the fact that you said it was technology that only exists on paper.
That is not true.
And the technology is advancing, just as solar technology is.
How are comments about biochar irrelevant when I am advocating for Biomass Biochar Energy Production Systems?
Your appeal to authority - "experts" - falls flat.
How do you know an expert hasn't alerted me to advances in this technology?
It is not burning, it is pyrolysis. Sure a quibble but we must define terms for clarity.
This is not an argument against wind, solar or tidal.

[Burnt Hill]

Also, when I refer to Biomass, this is what I am advocating for-

What’s Biomass? - Biomass is any material from a biological source. Sustainable biochar production uses crop residues, non-commercial wood and wood waste, manure, solid waste, non-food energy crops, construction scraps, yard trimmings, methane digester residues or grasses. Biomass for biofuels or biochar needs to be excess —beyond what should be left on-site for maintaining forest and agricultural cropland health. Bio-mass that can be converted to a higher purpose, such as for food or animal feed, shouldn’t be used for biochar production. In the U.S., sustainable production of biomass for energy use is strongly emphasized.
http://biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/5IPRenewableEnergy&%20Biochar_v5.pdf

[Iamwhomiam]

Burnt Hill, I'm tired and frustrated with your persistence and desire to engage me in arguing with you. If you were at all interested in becoming educated about this proposed BEBCS technology or biomass thermal technologies in general, you'd drop a line to one of the experts and ask them about this one specifically and the overall technology.

I've explained I can no longer engage in such discussions and why, yet you persist. And that reminds me of a child who asks "Why?" after you've explained why. Repeatedly.

To rehash: this is your post that initiated this discussion, is it not?
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=616197#p616197

This is the title of the article, is it not?
New model suggests scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere

This is the second paragraph of the article you posted, is it not?
The researchers propose using a “bioenergy-biochar system” that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in an environmental pinch, until other removal methods become economically feasible and in regions where other methods are impractical.

This is the site of the report that is the subject of the article you posted, is it not? (From where you gleaned the abstract)

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13160

Ok, Now I'll begin to address your reply to my most recent comment,
(http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=616947#p616947

This is not an argument against Solar Power.

You're naive about the subtleties the industry uses to pursuade, that I understand and won't fault you for your ignorance in this regard. Without your realizing it, this is exactly what it is. It will vie for monies solar developers and other low environmental truly renewable energy sources compete for. Any allocation of tax dollars to biomass thermal technologies is wasted money and money diverted away from being invested in proven low environmental impact energy producing technologies.
(This is where the Precautionary Principle should be applied.
Planting trees is a wonderful way to capture carbon from the atmosphere. The modeled technology your article describes captures carbon just this way. So why burn trees? To make and sell electricity and to make charcoal that would be sold as a soil amendment. That is where this technology's profit comes from, but then again, only if the crops grown in soils amended in this manner with biochar produce in abundance, according to the article in Nature. Plant trees to burn trees? Carbon Capture?

It is not about "burning mature trees", or wood pellets.

Your naivete is showing.

http://tinyurl.com/gm8fsfj

It is not about gasification.

No, of course it's not. No siree. sigh! [

From the article you posted a few sentences after writing, "It is not about gasification."

quote]Zion Research has published a new report titled "Biochar (Pyrolysis, Gasification, Hydrothermal and Others Technology) Market for Agriculture, Water & Waste Water Treatment and Other Applications: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2014 - 2020"
<snip>
Based on technology, biochar market can be segmented as pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal and others. The pyrolysis technology is largest segment accounted for significant share and expected to witness fastest growth at a CAGR of over 10.0% in terms of revenue from 2015 to 2020.[/quote]
That last quote came directly before the sentence you set in bold.

I'll now respond to your next copy pasta comment, which is really the same story, but from a different source. You chose to set in bold typeface the last paragraph:

The U.S. market for biochar is restrained majorly by the lack of consumer awareness regarding the effectiveness of biochar and the high production costs of biochar. These challenges can be resolved through strategies aimed at making general consumers more aware of the several benefits of the material and the entry of new companies in the marketplace. A larger competitive landscape will help the U.S. biochar market develop healthy competition, boost innovation in terms of production techniques, and bring down production prices.

I'm well aware of the US market and the effectiveness of biochar. Far from being restrained, like pretty much any other commodity, the US is the largest consumer of biochar in the world in the world.

With over 50% shares in total volume consumption, North America was the largest market. North America followed by Europe and Asia Pacific region. Europe was the second largest market for biochar and accounted for around 25% shares in total volume consumption in 2014. Asia Pacific is the third largest market accounted for the significant share of total market in 2014. Latin America and Meddle East & Africa are also expected to grow at a moderate pace.

Interesting it is to see some figures relating to the size of of the different markets around the world:

The U.S. Biochar market is expected to exhibit a 19.0% CAGR and rise from a valuation of US$1.4 mn in 2013 to US$4.9 mn by 2020.

But... but the article you posted earlier, just above this one indicates far different figures for the US biochar market. It claims the US market is valued at $260 million in 2014!

According to the report, the global biochar market was valued at approximately USD 260.0 million in 2014 and is expected to reach approximately USD 585.0 million by 2020, growing at a CAGR of around 14.5% between 2015 and 2020. In terms of volume, global biochar market stood at 100 kilo tons in 2014.

Why, oh why would they artificially inflate the market? Maybe to attract investors? Who's being fooled? Not me, BH.

You haven't replied to my question asking where these many millions of trees would be planted. Do you know? Do you know how many hectares will be needed? How many hectares of croplands will the planting of trees displace.

You have been avoiding answering me, but that;s ok; I know you don't know.

I'm going to respond now to your most recent comments, which should be just above this comment.

I am addressing the fact that you said it was technology that only exists on paper.

Yes, I did use the word technology. I actually meant the mathematical model related in the Nature article. It isn't physical, but theoretical, at least until put into practice. Truthfully, I hadn't realized the "Carbon Capture" the article you posted referred to was nothing much more than trees being planted. After downloading the Nature article I read it and it is detailed, much to my chagrin.

And the technology is advancing, just as solar technology is.

Which technology? Making charcoal? Planting trees? Boiling water? Photosynthesis? An effective-2.5ppm particulate capture air quality control device?

Honestly, forest fires create far more biochar than this thermal biochar technology possibly could and does it at no cost. Of course, because trees have no money, they don't pay for the char, nor do we. It just lies there getting poorer all the time, all the while enriching the soil and nurturing tree growth that happen to be phenomenal at capturing carbon and doing it without polluting or contributing much heat to our ever warming atmosphere. And all breathing creatures benefit. Everybody wins. For free!
But nobody makes money. And no power is generated. And crop fields aren't amended.

Composting deadfall and selling it to farmers makes money and is a more effective, more nutritious soil amendment than biochar is and it sequesters carbon that's more conducive to building healthy microbial communities that continues biodegrading the compost that releases evermore useful carbon and other nutrients and minerals that continually nurture whatever crops are grown. While building up the soil, compost also slows erosion. Compost is far superior to biochar as a soil amendment and its negative effects upon warming our atmosphere is less than biochar's, ultimately, a sustainable practice that mimics the natural cycle while effectively sequestering far more carbon than any thermal waste treatment.with its deadly emissions.

If you feel the desire to burn, burn natural gas.

Regarding this extremely expensive, wasteful, highly polluting biomass burning technology, it would be absurd for me to argue with you any longer. Just as absurd as chopping down an effective natural carbon sequestering forest to burn it to charcoal to put on fields and call it carbon sequestration, but you really need to plant more trees than you burn to capture carbon and sell enough char to farmers for it to become profitable. This makes sense to you, BH?

It's a matter of economics as well. Investing today in biomass energy production is madness, the kind of madness that makes me believe there really are lizards from outer space running around disguised as convincing incinerator salesmen, subtly killing us while bankrupting us with their "helpful" "Climate Change combating" technology.

Any investment of tax dollars in biomass thermal energy production removes those monies from being available for investment in other proven clean and truly renewable power producing technologies. The rapidly growing market is also looking to benefit from the carbon credit market

What's more frustrating to me than dealing the burner salesmen is dealing with intelligent people who are uniformed and choose to remain uninformed, even though they they've been been referred to experts to become better informed.

You choose to burn wood for heat because it's less costly for you to burn wood than to convert to a cleaner burning fuel, like propane (methane), even though you're aware of its negative impact upon our climate. This is not what we're arguing about, just to be clear.

I feel badly that you cannot see through this absurd scheme or the scheming thermal technology promoter's propaganda. Or understand the timing of this Earth-shaking "technology" revelation that trees are the best of all carbon sinks. There's nothing new about biochar. But why now, BH? Why is the market's growth projected to be so great over the next 5 years?

Do you recall that SCOTUS case I had been so worried about after Scalia's death? The decision of the 8-justice court earlier this year that found the EPA indeed did have the right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that I found a miraculous victory for our environment? And now this groundbreaking technology model, to add planting trees to offset biomass plant emissions, which is news to you. Only fools swallow what they care not about while others seek out those who might know just what it is they're swallowing and whether it's good for them. I doubt you understand what combined heat and energy technology means.

http://tinyurl.com/hgl3art

Lastly, pyrolysis is regulated by the EPA under the same rules as any combustion technology. It is considered a combustion technology.

[Burnt Hill]

And you are making me laugh.

Often I forget my power to make others post diatribes built on strawmen and misrepresentations!

Guess what is older than biochar?
Solar power. I guess we should have stopped developing that technology right after the magnifying glass.

Oh you are on the biochar bandwagon now? A few posts ago you implied it was essentially worthless.

Don't worry, I wont be building any wood fired power stations any time soon, so ease your troubled mind.

[Burnt Hill]

I am thinking of making this my sig line though...

Only fools swallow what they care not about while others seek out those who might know just what it is they're swallowing and whether it's good for them.

Isn't that from zoolander?

[Luther Blissett]

Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be 'game over', scientists warn
New research suggests the Earth's climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an 'apocalyptic side of bad' temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime

It is a vision of a future so apocalyptic that it is hard to even imagine.

But, if leading scientists writing in one of the most respected academic journals are right, planet Earth could be on course for global warming of more than seven degrees Celsius within a lifetime.

And that, according to one of the world’s most renowned climatologists, could be “game over” – particularly given the imminent presence of climate change denier Donald Trump in the White House.

Scientists have long tried to work out how the climate will react over the coming decades to the greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere.

According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

However new research by an international team of experts who looked into how the Earth’s climate has reacted over nearly 800,000 years warns this could be a major under-estimate.

Because, they believe, the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gases when it is warmer.

In a paper in the journal Science Advances, they said the actual range could be between 4.78C to 7.36C by 2100, based on one set of calculations.

Some have dismissed the idea that the world would continue to burn fossil fuels despite obvious global warming, but emissions are still increasing despite a 1C rise in average thermometer readings since the 1880s.

And US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will rip up America’s commitments to the fight against climate change.

Professor Michael Mann, of Penn State University in the US, who led research that produced the famous “hockey stick” graph showing how humans were dramatically increasing the Earth’s temperature, told The Independent the new paper appeared "sound and the conclusions quite defensible".

“And it does indeed provide support for the notion that a Donald Trump presidency could be game over for the climate,” he wrote in an email.

“By ‘game over for the climate’, I mean game over for stabilizing warming below dangerous (ie greater than 2C) levels.

“If Trump makes good on his promises, and the US pulls out of the Paris [climate] treaty, it is difficult to see a path forward to keeping warming below those levels.”

Greenpeace UK said the new research was further evidence that urgent action was needed.

Dr Doug Parr, the environmental campaign group’s chief scientist, said: “The worrying thing is the suggestion climate sensitivity is higher [than thought] is not incompatible with higher temperatures we have been seeing this year.

“If there is science backing that up, that there’s a higher sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases, that puts at risk the prospect of keeping the globe at the Paris target of well below 2C.

“Anybody who understands the situation we find ourselves in would have already have realised we are in an emergency situation.”

Dr Tobias Friedrich, one of the authors of the paper, said: “Our results imply that the Earth’s sensitivity to variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide increases as the climate warms.

“Currently, our planet is in a warm phase – an interglacial period – and the associated increased climate sensitivity needs to be taken into account for future projections of warming induced by human activities.

“The only way out is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.”

Dr Andrey Ganopolski, who was involved in the research and on the IPCC’s latest report, admitted their work was controversial with some scientists disagreeing and others agreeing with their findings.

“In our field of science, you cannot be definite by 100 per cent. There are always uncertainties and we discuss this in the paper,” he said.

“If we have more and more results of this sort, then we have more reasons to be concerned.”

Dr Ganopolski, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, suggested their findings meant it would be harder to prevent the world entering dangerous global warming of 2C or above.

“Our results mean it is not impossible to stay within 2C but it probably – if we are right and climate sensitivity is higher than this – would require even strong cuts in carbon emissions,” he said.

“Whether it’s feasible politically … I believe it is feasible technically.

“It would be really good to stay below 1.5C or close to that, whether it’s feasible I’m probably a bit sceptical about that.”

Commenting on the paper, Professor Eric Wolff, of Cambridge University, said using data from the past was a “powerful way of understanding the climate”.

But he noted the authors had used different ways of estimating average global temperature, some of which had produced “a lower range of values”.

“The estimates of temperature in this paper are subject to large uncertainties, and therefore the range of estimates for 2100 is also very wide,” Professor Wolff said.

“Still, it's encouraging that it overlaps with model estimates and confirms that the emission reductions promised in Paris are essential to avoid unacceptable climate changes."

Mark Lynas laid out what would happen as the temperature rises in his award-winning book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.

He was shocked by the researchers’ results.

“It sounds on the apocalyptic side of bad and, in some ways, it is realistic because ‘business as usual’ just got more likely as Trump wants to rebuild the pipelines … the complete ‘fossilisation’ of the US,” he said.

“It was game over at six [degrees] to be honest. I don’t think there was much more to add, other than turning the planet into Venus.”

Nasa recently said Venus may once have been habitable before runaway global warming turned the planet into its current version of hell with temperatures of more than 460C, almost no water and an atmosphere of mainly carbon dioxide with clouds of sulphuric acid.

[divideandconquer]

GLOBAL FREEZING: 15-year ICE AGE to hit in just 4 years as the sun prepares to 'HIBERNATE'

A 15-YEAR long mini ice age could be due to hit the Northern hemisphere in just FOUR years as the sun prepares for 'hibernation' - triggering a barrage of cataclysmic events.
By Nathan Rao
PUBLISHED: 02:15, Tue, Nov 8, 2016 | UPDATED: 07:17, Tue, Nov 8, 2016

A team of experts have warned that huge seismic events, including volcanic eruptions, plunging global temperatures and destabilisation of the Earth's crust will become more common after worrying changes to the surface of the Sun were recorded.

It could take up to 15 years for solar activity to return to normal with extreme weather and freezing temperatures continuing until 2035.

The warning will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 the world faces increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

Solar activity, measured by the appearance of sun spots, has been declining at a greater rate than at any other time in history, it has emerged.

The Sun is now without spots for the first time in five years after 21 days of minimal activity were observed through the course of 2016.

It could take 15 years for solar activity to return to normal

Although spots reappeared sporadically during the summer, repeated slumps of no activity were recorded through the year.

The trend has prompted scientists to warn that the world is hurtling towards a historic solar minimum event with output potentially dropping to an all-time low.

The world could be facing a 15 year winter

The phenomena are thought to drive extreme cold weather in Europe, including Britain, Northern America and across the lower southern hemisphere affecting New Zealand and parts of South America.

They have also been linked to major earthquakes in tremor hotspots igniting fears that major cities including Tokyo and Los Angeles could be facing the next ‘big one’.

Research by the The Space and Science Research Center in Florida revealed a strong link between low solar activity and seismic events.

The study looked at volcanic activity between 1650 - 2009 and earthquake activity between 1700 - 2009 comparing it to sunspots records.

It revealed a terrifying correlation between reduced solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events in recorded history.

Researchers at Japan’s Institute for Cosmic Ray Research concluded there is a link between global volcanic activity and solar activity lows.

Study author Toshikazu Ebisuzaki said: “Volcanoes with silica-rich and highly viscous magma tend to produce violent explosive eruptions that result in disasters in local communities and that strongly affect the global environment.

“We examined the timing of 11 eruptive events that produced silica-rich magma from four volcanoes in Japan (Mt. Fuji, Mt. Usu, Myojinsho, and Satsuma-Iwo-jima) over the past 306 years (from AD 1700 to AD 2005).

“Nine of the 11 events occurred during inactive phases of solar magnetic activity (solar minimum), which is well indexed by the group sunspot number.

“This strong association between eruption timing and the solar minimum is statistically significant to a confidence level of 96.7 per cent.”

The frequency of sunspots is expected to rapidly decline over the next four years reaching a minimum between 2019 and 2020.

Solar expert Piers Corbyn of forecasting group WeatherAction warned the Earth faces another mini ice age with potentially devastating consequences.

He said: “We are now in a decline of solar activity and are on course for a very quiet period.

“This can cause a shift in the jet stream making it move further south and as a result it turns very cold in temperate latitudes including Europe, Britain and North America.

“We are anticipating temperatures to drop leading to ocean water freezing and ice drifts washing up around the coasts in Europe - we expect the next mini ice age.”

He said the link between huge changes in solar activity and earthquakes is down to a reduction in the strength of magnetic fields around the Earth.

Parts of the world will face extreme freezing temperatures and oceans could turn to iceGETTY
Parts of the world will face extreme freezing temperatures and oceans could turn to ice

Japan, America, the Philippines and quake prone regions of the Middle East and Asia are about to be put on high alert, he warned.

He explained fewer solar flares associated with a minimum period reduce the magnetic pull over the surface of the Earth.

This stops all movement of tectonic plates, even the frequent harmless shifts which go unnoticed, allowing huge pressure to build up underneath the Earths crust.

The result, Mr Corbyn said, is much like a pressure cooker with any slightest movement triggering a massive earthquake.

“Think of it like comparing two bags of sugar being filled,” he said.

“If you have one with a small hole in the bottom it is constantly emptying while more is being added so there is no overall effect.


coldest city Siberia iceGETTY
Much of the world could look like the world's current coldest city in Siberia

“The other has no hole so it gets fuller and fuller until eventually it bursts, this is the sort of thing we are taking about.

“What we expect is fewer earthquakes overall, but more extremely severe ones in at risk regions, and this is very worrying.

“Tokyo, Los Angeles and other big cities could all be looking at the next big one.”

Scientists predict the number of observed sun spots will continue to decline over the next few years in the run up to 2020.

Eventually the ‘blank period’ will stretch into months triggering the start of the next Solar Minimum likely to last 15 years..

It will mark the 24th cycle since 1755 when solar activity was first recorded and the link made to climate and changes in terrestrial conditions.

In Britain, the main threat is of a repeat of the last significant solar minimum which triggered the infamous little ice age in the 1600s.

The so-called maunder minimum saw exceptionally harsh winters ravage the UK and northern Europe and led to the River Thames freezing over.

A Met Office-led study published last year claimed although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain could see cooler than average winters in years to come.

A spokesman at the time said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.

"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters.”

Solar physicist David Hathaway, of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre, added: “The solar minimum is coming, and it's coming sooner than we expected."

[Rory]

Jeebus, dude. Thats reprehensible clickbait horseshite

[Luther Blissett]

My environmental justice collective had just organized a meeting for next Tuesday on how to move forward under Trump, at least I can just bring this and say job's done.

[Luther Blissett]

I just saw friends from Alaska last month and they're saying the past few winters have been hell on the ecosystems without the typical replenishment that comes with normal cold winters.

The North Pole is 36 degrees HOTTER than normal as figures reveal Earth is on track for its warmest year on record

Temperatures in the Arctic have hit more than 36 degrees Fahrenheit above normal as polar night bears down on the region. In parts of Arctic Russia, experts say the anomalies even went beyond 40 degrees.

The shocking temperates come as the earth is on track for its warmest year on record after October temperatures equaled the third-warmest for the month ever, a U.S. government agency said.

Experts are baffled by the exceedingly high temperatures that are now occurring during a time that brings long periods of darkness, and usually, frigid temperatures.

Though October typically marks the start of a refreezing period, when the ice cover grows thicker and stronger following the summer melt, sea ice in the Arctic has hit a new low.

Data from Climate Reanalyzer shows how temperatures today have climbed upwards of 36 degrees Fahrenheit above the daily average. In a provisional statement released this week, from the World Meteorological Organization on the status of this year's global climate, scientists predicted that 2016 will be the hottest year on record.

And, the data shows few areas have been hit as hard as the Arctic.

'In parts of Arctic Russia, temperatures were 6°C to 7°C [42.8-44.7°F] above the long-term average,' said Petteri Taalas, WMO Secretary-General.

'Many other Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in Russia, Alaska, and northwest Canada were at least 3°C [37.4°F] above average.

'We are used to measuring temperature records in fractions of a degree, and so this is different.'

According to WMO, the autumn refreeze has begun – but it's happening much more slowly than normal.

At the end of October, sea ice extent hit a record-breaking low for that time of year.

On Twitter, experts have expressed their shock at the alarming trend.

Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, tweeted: 'Despite onset of #PolarNight, temperatures near #NorthPole increasing. Extraordinary situation right now in #Arctic, w/record low #seaice.'

The earth is on track for its warmest year on record after October temperatures equaled the third-warmest for the month ever, a U.S. government agency said on Thursday.

October globally was 1.31 Fahrenheit (0.73 Celsius) above the 20th century average of 57.1 F (13.9 C) and tying it with 2003 as the third-warmest October on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a statement.

For the year through October, the average global temperature was 1.75 F (0.97 C) above average, topping the record set in 2015 by 0.18 F (0.1 C).

'With only two months left in the year, the globe remains on track to be one of the warmest years, if not the warmest, in the 122-year record,' the agency said.

It said temperatures had begun to fall because of the La Nina weather pattern. It is characterized by unusually cold temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

Among standouts last month, Alaska and Finland had the driest Octobers on record. Africa also notched the second-warmest October, behind the record set in 2015.

The U.S. weather agency's report comes as negotiators meet in Morocco to hammer out the fine points of the historic 2015 Paris accord aimed at staving off climate change.

Almost 200 nations reaffirmed support for the deal on Thursday. The talks which have been overshadowed by worries that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, would pull out of the accord.

NOAA said the average Arctic sea ice area for October was 28.5 percent below the 1981-2010 average, the smallest extent of ice for the month since records began in 1979.

The world's averaged sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for October, and the warmest on record for the year to date, according to the NOAA.