WilcoRoger

You seem to get carried away by %s and confuse reality with vague roadmaps.

But let's look at your numbers - aviation is the source of 2% of the total global carbon emissions today. You posit that aviation will be about 25% of the budget (whatever that means). If we figure a doubling of actual aviation emissions and accepting that this would mean 25% of the total in 2050, it would mean that TOTAL global carbon emissions in 2050 are only 16% that of today (1/6th) Now if we have managed to reduce total carbon emissions by 84% in the next 30 years, aviation emissions will be negligible in terms of climate change.

Do you really have a clear technology path for 84% reduction? If so, expect a call from Stockholm (no, not from the Thunbergs )

Kagehitokiri

i would suggest talking to twitter.com/EcoSenseNow

also, increasing agriculture does require carbon, and feeding people is a good thing

dickerso

Actually, yes. No Nobel Prize worthy breakthroughs required, 1.5 to 2C is achievable through rapid adoption of existing renewable technologies. It will require both some political effort (ending fossil fuel subsidies, moderate carbon taxes), but the astounding price drops in renewables over the past ten years makes this quite reasonable.

Furthermore, you can expect some greatly expanded political will to put the earth on a more sustainable path with less severe global warming as people are more directly affected by the negative impacts of climate change. Do you really think Australian politics will be business as usual following this fire season?

https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/

You're like the CEO of Nokia in 2004 saying: "these smartphones are only a tiny portion of the market, no need for us to make huge changes to our core business!" while making the cognitive error of failing to understand the implications of exponential growth (renewables for terrestrial power).

Please try to enunciate a vision for the world in 2100 that doesn't suffer from catastrophic global warming. In that scenario, yep, aviation matters greatly.

hfly

No, what will happen in Australia, is that these bush fires will go into the annals of history as the 2nd or 3rd worst Bush Fires ever. Contrary to popular belief the only three big differences between this and past bush firs has been that, 1) That there were a few days which were the "hottest" on record during the fire, 2) That more of these fires have seemingly effected more places where people live in larger numbers than in recent fires (which has a whole different ecological question to it, which is have they been developing in stupid areas), and 3) We live ina social media world, so everyone's complaint is noted and "heard", which does not make this fire worse per se, but heard more by other people and the media.

Sort or reminds me of Hurricanes and New Orleans................my entire life, every time a Hurricane has veered anywhere up the Gulf they always said, "If it hits New Orleans, it will be catastrophic, as N.O. lies XX feet below sea level".............and for decades nothing hit. Then a Hurricane clipped N.O. and everyone and everything was to blame...................when in fact what is to blame was building a major city there in the first place.............and at some point, next year, ten years from now, maybe 50, maybe 100, a major Hurricane will hit N.O. and create a catastrophe, no matter how many levees are built, etc. It will NOT be the fault of Global warming, it will NOT be the fault of George Bush, it will NOT be the fault of the Army Corps of Engineers, it will be the fault of whoever founded New Orleans in the first place in that location.

dickerso

Sorry, but you're wrong: fires are getting worse and climate change is the primary driving factor.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...d-us-wildfires

We haven't had time to do all the analysis yet on the current fires in Australia, but basically many of the fires affecting Australia are occuring in areas and forest ecologies in which there's no historical record of fire having occurred nearby.

You're absolutely correct that fire is a complex topic that deals with:
-forestry management
-construction method in areas at risk for fire
-substantial annual variation in fire behaviour (aka the weather versus climate)

However, the overall extent of wildfire is clearly trending upwards and the costs associated with dealing with it (firefighting, insurance, construction methods) means that there's now a lot more areas that are essentially economically unbuildable due to climate change. The more we invest in avoiding climate change through controlling emissions, the less we destroy the economy through climate change. When you look at it at a global scale, reducing emissions is a heck of a deal relative to not building on anything touching a forest, not building anything close to the coast, etc.

WilcoRoger

Even the over-optimistic best case scenario in your link shows that 31% will still be fossil - and as the total energy consumption is going to keep growing, the 31% of 2050 is WAAAY over the 16% of today's emissions - which you were supposed to show is easy. And as said, it's just an over-optimistic, best case scenario.

Actually, nice charts - no risk in forecasting the future 10-30 years ahead. I envy those jobs. Actually they not even forecast - just say, that if we want X, Y is the solution and put it on a nice chart.

WilcoRoger

Humanity flourished during the Mediveval Warm Period, with temperatures even higher than today all over the globe - and the warming was very fast. Interestingly the graphs usually don't usually go back that far, preferring to start at the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. The cause of neither is unknown/undecided, but here we are arguing that e know the cause for today's changes in weather/climate.

(Going back 6-7000 years, the Arctic Sea was totally ice-free for extended periods.)

dickerso

Lolz.

This statement is totally wrong in all respects.

WilcoRoger

Hmm, a wikipedia graph without any explanation... really convincing... The black line seems like Trump's hurricane sharpie line

And you fail to address this remark: Interestingly the graphs usually don't go back that far, preferring to start at the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

Meanwhile:

Temperatures in the GISP2 ice core were about 2°F (1°C) warmer than modern temperatures. The effects of the warm period were particularly evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 A.D. to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 m, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0–1.4 °C (Oliver, 1973). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about 1 °C warmer than present (Fagan, 2000).

Elsewhere in the world, prolonged droughts affected the southwestern United States and Alaska warmed. Sediments in central Japan record warmer temperatures. Sea surface temperaturesin the Sargasso Sea were approximately 1 °C warmer than today, and the climate in equatorial east Africa was drier from 1000 A.D. to 1270 A.D. An ice core from the eastern Antarctic Peninsula shows warmer temperatures during this period.

dsf

A "Wikipedia graph"? I'm not certain it's reasonable to disparage just because Wikipedia happens to display it - especially considering it links through to the original on Wikimedia, which carries extensive notes, links to source material, an explanation of methodology, and so on. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Comparison.png

dickerso

Here I am in a full-blown debate about the reality of global warming, something I swore I wouldn't do. I regret getting dragged into this like potato salad that's been sitting outside at a picnic for 8 hours.

I shouldn't have engaged because your post has nothing to do with aviation, and again, if you want to debate global warming or something like the philosophical basis of human individual moral culpability, there are better venues on the internet.

To that end, I'll try to keep my response brief:
-The MWP wasn't global
-It wasn't rapid
-It wasn't as severe as the warming we've already experienced in places such as Alaska (for instance, there are plenty of spots in Alaska where temperatures are up close to 5 degrees C over the past decade)
Temperature Changes in Alaska | Alaska Climate Research Center

A decent summary:
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

If you're interested in a more state of the art scientific discussion:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...00806.full.pdf

Kagehitokiri

US/PR/VI went 12 years without category 3+ hurricane making landfall
("longest stretch without a major hurricane since record keeping began.")

10 24 2005 wilma 3

09 13 2007 humberto 1
07 23 2008 dolly 1
09 01 2008 gustav 2
09 13 2008 ike 2
08 27 2011 irene 1
08 28 2012 isaac 1
10 29 2012 sandy 1
07 04 2014 arthur 2
09 02 2016 hermine 1
10 07 2016 matthew 2

08 26 2017 harvey 4
09 10 2017 irma 4
09 20 2017 maria 4
10 07 2017 nate 1
09 14 2018 florence 1
10 10 2018 michael 4

hugolover

The Covid crisis has struck me at how easy it would have been to totally ground air travel and how travel could have been so easily discouraged by Government mandated decree removing international mobility. Moreover, its fascinating that the solutions to Covid are essentially the same to the climate emergency. A total shut down of carbon aggressive businesses with state support leading to a slow transition of those jobs to carbon neutral employment. I.e. its looking increasingly likely that in the short to medium term that there is to save the world from the climate emergency (approx 7 years according to all the experts, campaigners and governments) that the travel industry,-which for the most part is entirely unnecessary will never get back to the levels of 2019. This is an extremely good thing.

Remember, its known as a climate emergency because the technological solution to climate change has failed. There just isn't enough time left for technology to replace climate gas intensive activities, that I term carbon criminality. In 7 years there won't be H2 powered aircraft, Africa, China, India will not be carbon neutral. There's no time to debate the merits of carbon offset, to tax frequent flyer programmes, to put taxes on certain travel classes. There is just not enough time remaining. A total shut down is the only solution.

Again, like with Covid, a great reset is needed, a circuit breaker for the climate emergency, freezing a moment in time. While tens of millions have had their carbon emissions reduced by the effect of Covid its the right time to shut down economies while there is still time to save the world.

This may seem extreme, it will shock many, make many carbon criminals angry but it has to be done. Covid has taught us it CAN be done.

hfly

The only silver lining to Covid was not having to hear whining about the sky falling, like the above for the last 6 months or so.....