Slashdot Mirror
Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Scorch Earth, Says Study (phys.org)
mspohr quotes a report from Phys.Org: A new study published in the Journal Nature Climate Change shows our precarious climate condition: "Using up all known fossil fuel reserves would render Earth even more unlivable than scientists had previously projected, researchers said on Monday. Average temperatures would climb by up to 9.5 degrees Celsius (17 degrees Fahrenheit) -- five times the cap on global warming set at climate talks in Paris in December, they reported. In the Arctic region -- already heating at more than double the global average -- the thermometer would rise an unimaginable 15 C to 20 C." This would make most of Earth uninhabitable to humans (although the dinosaurs seemed to do fine with it 65 million years ago). The report also stated that if fossil fuel trends go unchanged, ten times the 540 billion tons of carbon emitted since the start of industrialization would be reached near the end of the 22nd century. For comparison, "older models had projected that depleting fossil fuel reserves entirely would heat the planet by 4.3 C to 8.4 C. The new study revises this to between 6.4 C and 9.5 C," writes Phys.Org.
If you burned it all tomorrow, yes the planet would burn.. burn it over a millennia, no, it won't. Something else might (and probably will at the rate we're going) do it in in that thousand years, but it would not be emissions from fossil fuels.
The article makes absolutely NO MENTION of time frame, and no mention of preventative measures that may be (and are) taken.
Err, the "if nothing changed" scenario was kind of the point. And people modded this idiot up?
It is say that *if* we do nothing to reduce fossil fuel use and continue to emit as we do today, what is likely to happen. Its not predicting that we do nothing. The best guess is that at least some countries keep the Paris pledge and reduce emissions. But, if everyone decided that they could not be bothered to make the changes required, then we can expect significant warming.
Climate researchers run a variety of emissions scenarios in their models. There are also a number of different models used to make their projections. These models also have a lot of settings that can significantly change the configuration, which affects the results. There is no single climate projection, but a spread of possible outcomes for future climate.
These models are hypotheses that try to explain the behavior of the climate system. If these models are started with data from 10 or 20 years ago, they can also project what Earth's temperature should be now. Our greenhouse gas emissions are at the very high end of the scenarios. Despite promises to curb emissions, they continue to increase on the global scale. The scenarios with the highest emissions are also the warmest scenarios.
Here's the problem: our temperatures aren't at the high end of the projections. Instead, they're at the bottom end. Yes, the Earth has gotten warmer, but not nearly to the extent the models have already projected.
If the models aren't accurately predicting our temperatures now, why should we believe their predictions for farther in the future? If the models are already too warm, why should we believe them when their predictions are revised upward?
This comes across as totally alarmist. It seems like someone, whether a scientist or a politician, really wants more money. To get the money, they've stepped up their already overstated dire predictions about climate change.
A serious question about the squabble. Even if GW is not AGW, even if GW is not real, why should we not as a species work to reduce our impacts everywhere?
Silence is a state of mime.
. . . they are very difficult to get rid of. Give 'em a scorched Earth . . . they'll figure some way to survive in it.
Will a lot of folks suffer and die in the process? Hell, yeah. But there will still be some humans around who have figured out how to thrive in that environment.
People like to joke about cockroaches being the only living critter that will survive the nuclear apocalypse.
When I think of the post-nuclear apocalypse world, I see a creepy looking humanoid, munching on cockroaches.
McCockroaches, indeed.
"Would you like some fries with your roaches?"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Anyone who doesn't make predictions based on nothing changing for 200 years will never learn what changes are needed in the next 200 years.
This space intentionally left blank
If by "livable" you mean "pockets of humanity are able to eke out a subsistence living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland" then sure!
Because, the trend remained unchanged in their minds. Modeling and fortune telling are more art and religion than actual science.
Um, no, the study isn't predicting that fossil fuel usage will go unchanged, it's predicting what will happen IF fossil fuel usage goes unchanged. That's a very important difference.
Those who are in "policy making" are bad at math and physic. I always get a sense that low IQ or low persistence people become politicians that always want to control others. It was always like that through ages, since the times when everyone knew that earth is being held by three giant whales or elephants.
Most of fossil fuels represent energy of sun converted to carbohydrates or coal. Of course burning all of it would heat up mother Earth. But burning it slowly, won't.
Those models that calculate carbon dioxide emitted to earth always, and I say, always, fail to take into account intricacies on how fast carbon dioxide is consumed by the oxygen making living organisms of the earth. Have there been any studies that demonstrate marginal increase in carbon dioxide absorption compared to the increase of the output of carbon dioxide.
If there are any serious studies, such studies will never be mentioned by policy makers. Nobody is denying that a lot of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere, and that the climate is changing (it always changing).
To battle climate change by wearing green shirt and driving Prius, is similar to the rainmaking rituals of Zuni: one most wear blue feather and avoid staring to the buffalo on the day of the ritual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And I don't know where you get the notion that a slower release would make things better.
I'm not a denier, by any means, but it does make some sense that a slower release would be better. There are processes (photosynthesis being the most obvious) that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Conceivably, there is some rate of fossil fuel use that is sustainable, but maybe that rate is so low that it's irrelevant on a global industrial scale.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
>> This would make most of Earth uninhabitable to humans
Are you sure you're counting the large landmasses in Canada and Siberia?