Aston(ishing) Result...

Ok, a few weeks ago I wrote about how the idea that…

Ante eulogy for a political pornographer

By Paul Smith   In anticipation of the day when John Howard shuffles off…

Inglorious Inertia: The Albanese Government and Julian Assange

The sham that is the Assange affair, a scandal of monumental proportions…

Victorian MLC Moira Deeming: the pretty face of…

“I can’t wait until I’m legally able to hunt you down.” This curse…

Science & Technology Australia welcomes National Reconstruction Fund

Science & Technology Australia Media Release The nation’s peak body representing 115,000 Australian…

Calculated Exoneration: Command Responsibility and War Crimes in…

Being the scapegoat of tribal lore cast out with the heavy weight…

The Voice: Remember When The Liberals Were Still…

At the moment we're witnessing the Liberal Party at their absurd best.…

Nazis on our streets: don't judge protesters by…

On some level, it is straightforward for a Neo-Nazi protest to be…

«
»
Facebook

Is Labor really striving for 1.5°C over pre-industrial temperature?

By Keith Antonysen  

Around 16 months ago, artificial intelligence (AI) was used to assess 100,000 climate change studies to display whether those studies upheld climate science.

There are so many studies being created it is impossible to read all studies or articles about the studies published.

The AI survey upheld the conclusions of the 100,000 studies. The heading in Science Alert was “AI Analysis of 100.000 Climate Studies Reveals How Massive The Crisis Already Is.”

Some “hard truths” are needed:

“Is 1.5 degrees Celsius still within reach?

Not unless the world starts making way more of an effort to cut emissions. To meet the 1.5-degree goal, emissions would need to peak by 2025 at the absolute latest, which seems highly unlikely. The temperature increase is already at 1.2 degrees Celsius. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report in April warning it is “almost inevitable” that the world temperature will surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius even in the next few years.”

Scientists working for Exxon Mobil decades ago assessed that when CO2 reached 430 parts per million then the expected global temperature would be around 1.5C above pre- Industrial times. The rate of increase of CO2 in parts per million is around 2.4 per annum at present. The measure of CO2 for 2022 was 417.2ppm. A continuation of a 2.4 increase in CO2 at 2.4 ppm will mean that 430 ppm in 2030 will have been by-passed. The combination of all greenhouse gases expressed in terms of CO2 is over 500 ppm.

The rate of loss of forests in the Amazon Basin and other tropical areas, along with loss of mangrove forests; with added wildfires around Earth mean natural storage of CO2 reduces. Also, the warming of oceans means an incredible amount of CO2 needs to be eradicated. Oceans are a major storage point for CO2, except as they warm the uptake of CO2 is less.

These factors add to the possibility of 1.5C as being unassailable.

It has been suggested that the change in Arctic jet stream has reached a tipping point.

Labor has done well up to now; but, allowing new major fossil fuel developments cancels out any previous good work done.

There are apparently 118 new coal and gas ventures in the pipeline, should any be developed then Labor trashes all the good work done and creates a further amplification of climate change.

Keith Antonysen has been researching climate change for decades. Apart from reading about climate science, Keith also views pseudo-science presented by contrarians. It seems that the material referenced by contrarians is continually recycled. Immense problems will be created unless real efforts are made to thwart the worst climate can throw at us. Nature bats last.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 1,968 total views,  2 views today

2 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Harry Lime

    Hi Keith,you’ve answered your heading question…it’s a big fat NO.

  2. Clakka

    Indeed, it’s a big fat NO.

    And rather than ducking and weaving and getting bogged down in political invective and half-tech, at the risk of being left in the dark, one might have thought it was very important and relevant to ask:

    Given the imperative to bridge to renewables from fossil fuels
    One. What is the comparable quantum (ratio) of fossil fuels : renewables now?
    Two. When is it anticipated Renewables & infrastructure will be tech-ready for complete replacement of fossil fuels?
    Three. When is it anticipated that a completed roll-out of fully functional Renewables and infrastructure can fully replace fossil fuels?
    Four. To bridge the time/cost gap between ‘One’ and ‘Three’ above, what, if any, additional fossil fuel resources will be needed?

    Difficult questions to answer, and I’m sure the devil will be in the detail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: