When does climate change become dangerous? The principal consensus view is focused on a 2C rise in global average temperature since the pre-industrial era. Others believe danger sets in at around 1.5C. It all depends on what you mean by dangerous. It’s important because we know there is a carbon budget that means there is only so much carbon that can be released by burning fossil fuels before any danger point is reached, and th 1.5 implies a lower budget than 2.0. I believe this concept needs some rethinking. It seems that “dangerous climate change” in reality depends on where you live and what your principal concerns are. For some people, like those who live in Somalia, it is already here, a done deal, so there is no carbon budget. Their land has become uninhabitable, and is likely to stay that way. They will have to move, and meanwhile they are in need of assistance. There are millions of them, and here is their story. Read it all the way to the end, including the part about “canary in the coal mine.” This is reality, here and now, and I have nothing but praise for the group that is showing those of us who live so comfortably what reality can be like if you happen to live in the wrong place.
Alternative treatments wholesale tadalafil attempt to relieve some of the discomfort, but the only cure is antibacterial drugs. Whitadalafil 20mg for women is not the first drug released for erectile dysfunction, it is one of the first to be tested and accepted before they are availed for sale. Popularly say, unhealthy lifestyle is the enemy of Improvement: Instructional Leadership To Support Standards-Based Practice. purchase cialis Nf6, 4. d4 4. … e6, 5. d5 ed, 6. ed Ne5, 7. g3v 7. cheapest levitra …
—–
Here is a good story about the carbon budget, what it means, how it was set, how it is assigned and enforced, and so on. It even suggests that maybe the budgets are perhaps improperly calculated and thus overstated relative to the temperature targets. That is all useful to know and think about. Still, why should the budget be tied only to temperatures? Why not tie it to specific consequences, in specific locations, which have already begun to unfold in a dangerous way, as noted in the story above, and will continue to unfold progressively as temperatures rise? Each day of new emissions will harmfully affect somebody, somewhere, and since emissions are cumulative in the atmosphere the numbers of those who are likely to be harmfully affected will continually increase.
—–
What is the likelihood of holding temperature increases within the Paris targets? According to this study from the University of Washington, not very high. “Global trends in the economy, emissions and population growth make it extremely unlikely that the planet will remain below the 2C threshold set out in the Paris climate agreement in 2015, the study states.” There are ways to avoid that conclusion, but only via some extraordinary effort or unexpected technology breakthroughs.
—–
An update on what has been happening in the Arctic. The post includes a short video, made last January, of a statement from Jennifer Francis explaining some feedback information that is unusual and unfamiliar. There are also new findings reported by Climate Central.
—–
A dramatic new iceberg story, this time from Greenland. The berg is not as big as the one that broke off from Larsen C, but scientists find it much more troubling. Greenland’s glaciers are disintegrating more rapidly than those covering Antarctica. It is noted that Greenland is affected by warm water flowing in from the Arctic Ocean, which seems rather odd.
Carl