They tried to bury this new report from government sources, by releasing it on Black Friday.
Let’s prove that calculation wrong.
Skip to content
Here all papers => https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
MCC have adjusted their Carbon Clock accordingly => https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html
Many thanks for including the link to the Carbon Clock, it’s great to see an actual target to aim for, especially after reading two new articles this week on exploiting new fossil fuel fields;
BBC – “There’s no doubt that methane hydrates could offer a major source of fuel, with recent estimates suggesting they constitute about a third of the total carbon held in other fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. Several nations, notably Japan, want to extract it.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181119-why-flammable-ice-could-be-the-future-of-energy
National Geographic – “If the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approves a permit application submitted by SAExploration last July, two dozen of the massive, 30-foot-long vehicles could begin slowly crisscrossing the refuge’s coastal plain this winter, sending powerful, low-frequency vibrations into the ground and recording the reflections off deep layers of rock—all in the hope of finding black gold. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the area may contain more than 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
The thumper trucks will be accompanied by more than 150 support vehicles, including crew quarters for 300, fuel tanks, snow cats, tractors, bulldozers—an army of heavy equipment traversing the fragile tundra. The seismic prospecting has to happen in winter, when the tundra is frozen, so the vehicles won’t sink into the mire.”
The trouble is, winter is when female polar bears come ashore to dig dens in deep snow drifts and give birth to their cubs.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/oil-prospecting-may-begin-in-alaska-refuge-this-winter/
Excellent reporting. Watch it on Youtube and check out the comments from the morans. It’s going to be a lo-o-o-o-ng hard slog.
Why does he insist on saying it’s all fossil fuels. Too ‘political’ to say it’s meat production?
According to the U.S.A EPA agriculture contributes less than 10 % of GHGs. The majority is from Industry, Electricity generation and transportation. While we have to do something on all fronts to survive catastrophic climate change I suspect we could live with agricultural contributions without the fossil fuel/ energy emissions. Nothing political about it at all. Stop confusing science with politics, it is all to painfully common these days.
Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer. Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
There have been quite a few scientific attempts to quantify the contribution of food and, specifically, meat production to global warming. Nothing political about it…and I’m no vegetarian warrior. I seriously doubt the EPA has calculated the deforestation involved (and projected) and the carbon NOT removed from the atmosphere as a result. OK, CBS has to refine the message, but let’s not impute scientific rigor to their effort.
Quite frankly I’m surprised I found the EPA article after the present U.S government’s attempt to nullify and suppress the organization. You will find similar conclusions from the IPCC.
If the present generation cannot recognize the urgent thrust of this latest report, and are going to continue with business as usual then we are in deep trouble.
Oil and gas is sector top source of US methane emissions, ahead of agriculture
Yes, there have been “quite a few scientific attempts” to quantify the contribution of food production and deforestation (especially by those whose job it is more than the EPA’s).
Anyone who natters on about food rather than the fact that we are still burning large quantities of fossil fuels, coal particularly, is not displaying much “scientific rigor”, and is asking to be described as “politically motivated”.
I don’t know how much is political and how much is simplification. In any case, ratios of beef-production GHGs and and FF GHGs are varying all the time, and I think right FF production, processing and combustion (with its CH4 release) is growing faster than CH4 cow burps, and permafrost CO2/CH4 release could pass it faster inside of a few decades.
Even all the concrete (whose production releases CO2) that was poured in China in that last few decades should be starting to gradually adsorb some CO2 as a small but reliable negative feedback.
In any case, the CBS guy brought in the jet stream, hurricanes and Arctic amplication, because he’s addressing it from a meteorological perspective, while this alternative simplified summary, which goes more into the feedbacks, doesn’t really address it.
Summary at Real Climate => http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/4th-national-climate-assessment-report/
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn_centered_medium/public/image_large/US-Economic-impact-climate-change-NCA-2018.png
=> Climate Change Puts U.S. Economy and Lives at Risk, and Costs Are Rising, Federal Agencies Warn
A tangent, perhaps: At 3:15 in the video there is an aerial pass over flooding in Beaumont, TX., showing a rainbow oil plume around the house. This should remind us that flooding of both residential neighborhoods and industrial sites releases nasty stuff from our gas tanks, garages, basements, etc.