Caution urged over use of ‘carbon unicorns’ to limit warming
Climate scientists meeting in Korea are being urged to avoid relying on untested technologies as a way of keeping global temperature rise under 1.5C.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish a report on how the world might stay below this limit.
Early drafts said it would require machines to suck carbon out of the air.
The ideas are unrealistic, said one expert, calling them “carbon unicorns”.
The IPCC special report, to be released on Monday, is expected to point towards the use of technology as a critical part of efforts to keep below the guardrail figure.
The pathways to keeping below 1.5C required rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions with net-zero reached by the middle of this century.
If emissions continue at the present rate, the world would “overshoot” 1.5C by 2040.
If this happens, researchers believe that carbon dioxide removal technologies, in some form, would be needed to help bring the Earth’s temperature back down.
The IPCC report is expected to mention a number of approaches that range from planting more trees, to direct air capture of CO2, to bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
Full story at The BBC
Unicorn farts cause global warming. 97% of climate scientists agree. The science is settled.
What? You mean like plants? That’s what they do! And they typically provide a resource we can use at the same time.
Why reinvent something even much more fundamental than the wheel?
Love the unicorn. Can you get it on a tea Shirt?
I have this idea for carbon sequestration.
Seed the oceans with millions of minute particles of some inert substance that floats close to the surface. These will act as nuclei for the growth of algae, which absorb CO2.
Of course plankton will ingest some particles to digest the algae, but the particles are inert so are excreted without harm to the plancton. The inert particles will now have a layer of fertiliser to promote more algae growth.
Of course the extra plankton will lead to an increase of productive fisheries, but I am sure mankind can survive all the extra food available.
“Seed the oceans with millions of minute particles of some inert substance that floats close to the surface. These will act as nuclei for the growth of algae, which absorb CO2.”
Millions of minute particles of some inert substance like, say, disintegrating plastic?
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/01/26/our-oceans-a-plastic-soup/
Its very simple. They should just reduce the temperature sensitivity figures they use in their models to more realistic values, ie less than 1.0 and Voila, the problem disappears.
I bet none of the solutions to lowering CO2 offered in the new IPCC report have anything to do with telling China and India to limit their CO2 production.
How does the IPCC square its doomsday rhetoric about how CO2 is pushing the Earth over a tipping point in the near future, while it allows China and India unlimited increases to their CO2 production until the year 2030?
The IPCC’s rhetoric says “crisis”, but it’s actions say “no problem”.
There’s no money in telling the Chinese Communist party what to do, they’re authoritarian, they don’t tolerate dishonest greenie ngo upstarts pushing daft lies to gain political influence and power, to steal state of money via false-pretenses.
Dry hole.
So it’s up to you to pay for saving the planet.
Thank you for your sacrifice on the alter of stupidity.
It’s very naughty the way the IPCC and its cronies have all started touting the new 1.5 degree ‘limit’ instead of the old 2. It is probably because they have realised that ECS is a lot lower than they thought and the ‘global temperature’ isn’t rising anywhere near as fast as they had hoped it would.
However, they’re skating on thin ice of their own making because according to the (fraudulently adjusted) temperature data we’ve already had 1 degree. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think another half a degree (or even a full degree, for that matter) would be anything but net beneficial?! More global greening, anyone..?
These climate cranks are busy painting themselves into a corner, and it will be a happy day when they are finally hoist by their own petard…
They also seemed to have recently coined the new phrase “guard rail” at 1.5C
Must be in the talking points memo I don’t get…:^)
I take issue with this, from the BBC article:
Why:
Presently, The World uses 21,000TWh of electricity per year
I make that= 21 Billion MegaWatt hours
By example, Drax admitted that, when burning wood and for every megawatt hour they produce, they release 900kg of CO2
So I get 19 Billion tonnes of CO2 coming from wood burning to provide all the world’s electricity.
As we’ve learned before, one acre of fast growing Spruce consumes 5 tonnes of CO2 per year.
Hence the world will need (19/5) = 3.8 billion acres of Spruce. Per year.
As the wiki tells us, the are of India is 0.8 billion acres
Hence it will need 4.6 Indias ANNUALLY
To supply the present demand for *just* electricity
Do we put those trees on a 30 year rotation?
= a place 140 times the size of India
These people have completely lost their minds.
And I know why.
Carbohydrate food