No10, Boris and climate change.

I subscribe to updates from carbonbrief.org and this just arrived in this morning. Makes for interesting reading, and pertinent to these last few weeks wishing this countrys leadership can get back to focusing on climate change, the elimination of poverty and coping with the future.

But lets also remind ourselves of COP26 Glasgow … what did it achieve?

Were the right people invited?

How will COP26 be viewed in hindsight?

In actual effect was it pointless?

One could be certainly justified in saying it was pointless, the IPCC we must remember does not factor in the effects of methane, something that can arrive as microbial activity, thawing methane hydrate previously locked as ice, and subsea ice itself thawing and allowing vent to previously trapped methane fields. Also, I find it erroneous when the multiplication factor of say 80x is bandied around for methane which is a projection over an incredibly generous time frame, in reality with a series of big releases in one season of thawing our time on this planet would be measured in months, and at that timeframe the methane effect must surely be many hundreds that of CO2.

Lets add some substance to this, casting around re methane Al Jazeera have this worthwhile article and vid embed third of four lower down the page … https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/10/27/melting-arctic-ice-permafrost-uncontrolled-global-heating

My advice to COP26 Glasgow…

Get a pin, get a map of the world, place the point of the pin to the location of where your initiative, or project or energy saving or tree planting will occur.

RESULT = merely a pin prick in a whole world of CO2 and impending methane release and the myriad of interconnected self-reinforcing feedback effects.

What frightens me particularly is how puny the COP26 is proving to be, how long dated the deadlines actually are, something as by 2030 or 2050 is laughable …. we won’t be here as a species I fear.

Professor Peter Wadhams a world expert on ice and its demise I quote loosely “In that what is needed is a project many multiple times that of the Manhattan Project and of at least equal speed”

In other words of sufficient scale and speed.

Its a huge ocean out there, six sevenths of the worlds surface, its my opinion many of our solutions will have to be ocean based rather than land.

Will it happen …. I doubt it.

Climate change, ice loss, the future.

Its not very well put actually, Prof Peter Wadhams does okay in his own style but the other two particularly Mark seem not too good with words, I’d have expected greater eloquence, must be hell to get a lecture from them, or maybe I should have been a lecturer myself.

Good to hear criticism of the IPCC, they have a powerful voice and grip on humankinds response to this climate catastrophe and impending mass extinction event.

It rambles and rumbles along, but I cannot share the enthusiasm at the loss of Stuart Scott the previous frontman for this, I always thought he was too much the lightweight, not much presence, too light a touch on the subject to get anyone to notice, too quiet a speaker. Maybe we need more of the Brian Blessed to get these discussions noticed!

Never mind, Mr Grumpy here, no harm intended, it starts very elementary and luckily gets better, salient points are mankinds inability with non-linear change and a hypothetical question at 28:00 that if we fast tracked solar generation into a five year period as how this would help or solve the matter of human extinction. Answer is ‘not really’ … all the changes are now ‘locked in’ to the unstoppable dynamic of climate change and extinction. Not much was made of the methane time bomb but when Prof Wadhams is quizzed into admitting five years as a possible diary marker for a cataclysmic event in my opinion I agree.

E&OE .. merely my personal views, no harm intended, copyright for text climate-change-briefing.com 2021