Home | About | Donate

Study Calls for Rapid "Negative Emissions" as Scientist Warns "Shit's Hitting the Fan"


As long as the carbon is not in the atmosphere, why should it matter if it is in mines or on the surface in trees? Chlorophyll can do the job without external energy input. At the same time, the energy intensive “way of life” in some countries will need to be scaled down drastically.



The surface reservoirs are soil & vegetation, oceans & ice, and the atmosphere. Over the long term (and, in the case of forest fires, not such a long term) carbon is fluidly exchanged between the three. For instance, warming would be much worse today if the global ocean hadn’t absorbed so much carbon - but we may be rapidly approaching the point at which the ocean yields as much carbon as it absorbs.

In my opinion, there’s compelling evidence to suggest that the global ecosystem - all the oceans, forests, and swamps - has recently transitioned from a carbon sink to a carbon source. The evidence is that human carbon emissions, according to the most reliable estimates, have held steady for the past four or five years. Meanwhile, the increase in atmospheric carbon continues to accelerate. This would be an example of very short-term carbon sequestration in surface reservoirs.


Except that the ice cap is not gaining mass. How ridiculous you really are.


I appreciate the link. However, could you differentiate between proposed / planned construction and actual plants under construction? Investments being what they are, there are many incentives for a company to project future ‘plans’ as if they were already (or almost) signed contracts. To cite a plannned project is a good way to invite investment in it but failing to attract said investments will often mean cancellation of the planned project.

A careful (or even a casual) reading of the article shows mainly speculation rather than specifics. It is one thing to cite a plant under construction in an actual locality but another thing to say that some unknown source claims such projects will be built.

It is very likely that few of these supposed coal fired plants will be built in places like Egypt where solar would seem the preferred energy source but if you or that author or the source that supposedly tracks such plans that were cited, could show actual confirmed construction then that would be significant!

Both China and recently India have officially cancelled plans to build hundreds of new coal fired plants. China first with India’s announcement following more recently. These were announcements put out by the respective governments and very much different than this rather broad speculation of possible future planned construction (with no specifics nor localities much less companies involved offering any confirmation) none of which is actually happening now!


Bottom left corner of page 32 of The Week magazine for July 21, 2017.  They also noted that Chinese compan­ies were backing about 700 of the approximately 1600 plants.  The good news that China is switching as fast as possible to replace coal-fired plants with solar & wind power generation has been reported elsewhere as well, but even 160 new coal-fired plants – or only 16 – is going in the opposite direction of what this article recommends.


I understand but like with India’s proposed plants ( which were subsequently cancelled ), speculation on possible construction is not a valid gauge of where things are headed. I took your point about whether it is 1600 (very unlikely) or 160 (far more possible sadly) or 16 (almost a certainty) as unfortunate for the planet. I don’t know why the article was written except as an industry generated piece. Considering that new solar brings in electricity more cheaply than coal and doesn’t entail the peripherals associated with coal production (including transportation as well as mining) building a plant where there isn’t even one already like in Egypt seems absurd.

On the other hand corruption will produce results that go against logic and always has.


Of course, that’s after the boys in the white coats come and take him back “home”, where uncle Donnie and cousin Pence will read him a bedtime story.
Some people simply REFUSE to accept REAL science as reality- because it interferes with their nice, neat alternative reality


I think you give them too much credit. They simply don’t care. They are aware of the truth.


Yeah, I’m being way too generous tonight.
Must be the heat.
No, wait!-there ain’t no Global warming!.. sigh


Here you go, they cited the NY Times:


But no the dumbass politicians lowered the speed limit and after a few years the crisis was promptly forgotten.

In the “dumbass politician’s” defense, he also put solar panels on the Whitehouse and asked everyone to turn down their thermostats in the winter and wear a sweater. Compliance on the speed limits, sweaters and thermostats was minimal. Reagan pulled the solar panels off and raised the speed limits and a popular roar was heard.

Then there was this nonsense:


Another interpretation is that the surface is still sequestering, but human emissions still overload natural sequestration ability, even at the “steady” emissions level now.


Thanks for this…


I am so sorry for you … you seem to be trying to make some kind of …name for your self?..maybe?


But . . .   but . . .  Egypt has enormous reserves of coal buried under all that sand – didn’t you know?  Or maybe China is planning to ship coal to Egypt once their new railway line from Lanzhou to Cairo via Kyrgistan, Uzbeki­stan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq and Jordan is completed.

True enough.  “They” did manage to get the prohibition of shipping crude oil from the U.S. repealed so that the ‘Black Snake’ pipeline through the Dakotas could be profitable, so I’m sure that shipping coal from Wyoming to Cairo via Tacoma, across the Pacific, around Sri Lanka and through the Red Sea will make SOMEBODY some big bucks!  Money that can be used to buy another three or four Congressmen – maybe even a Senator!!


“A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.”

Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports

So our south ice cap IS gaining mass. Not true of northern ice cap, however.


Seems plausible, somehow.  Even though the ice is melting faster, the warmer oceans evaporate more water than previously, so there’s enough additional snow to more than compensate for the increased melting.  Does this apply to the ice sheets covering Greenland as well?   And I wonder what will happen when the warming of the oceans melts all the frozen methane that’s supposedly at the bottom of the sea?  CH4 is a much more po­tent greenhouse gas than CO2 – or so “they” say . . .   (That’s a much different “they” than the ones I referred
to in my response to Wereflea, above.)


A study done in 2015 is considered new by you? Do you think that all the newer studies , satellite data and reports (especially those specifically designed to calculate the rate of loss ) are irrelevant?

How about googling some actually new studies?

Btw. Does the Larsen C ice shelf mean nothing to you nor why ( the reasons why it broke off), the albedo effect, the persistence of warmth unknown to Antarctica, the presence of greenery on the antarctic peninsula for the first time ever, the retreat of the ice shelves causing penguins to starve as they are further from their food sources, the presence of melt water on the surface even in the interior and the increased rate of movement of glaciers to the sea mean nothing to you?

Or did you never know anything about the subject of which you speak?


I’m trying to think this one down to a simple problem to grasp it (even though the principles of carbon cycles are far from simple). Say the amount of carbon which the global ecosystem can absorb is a fixed total or percentage. In either case, a leveling off of human emissions would eventually (over a few years, I’d think) result in the same trend for atmospheric carbon. When we instead see record increases year after year, this strongly indicates that natural sequestration is rapidly declining.

But you’re right. It doesn’t necessarily mean the global ecosystem is now a carbon source. Thanks for pointing out this exaggeration on my part. Other possible problems with my argument are (1) perhaps the emissions data has recently been warped so egregiously that its leveling-off trend is illusory, and (2) four or five years is too soon to draw definitive conclusions, since things like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation can introduce considerable natural variability.

At any rate, the recent divergence between the trends for human emissions and atmospheric carbon is, in my opinion, an even more disturbing development than Larsen C falling apart - but there has been very little notice of it.


yeah, there’s little you can do. this is a guy that thinks Rand had anything of substance to say. you’re not dealing with the sharpest knife in the drawer, just the most privileged.

this system desperately needs a blocking function.