Schroders, a British global investment firm, warns its investors to base decisions on outcomes that are likely (based on science), instead of overly simplistic analysis [presumably from a free market economics perspective].

image source

As a science literate person, I'm constantly amazed at how the stock market responds to Trump's deregulation. How could all those rich investors have no clue about climate destabilization?

... to inform investors of climate risks that analysts at Schroders believe are not being factored into investment decisions.

"Investors who are unprepared or who have relied on overly simplistic analysis risk losses and missed opportunities,"...

It breaks down what would happen to global temperatures if we continue on our current business-as-usual course, based on 12 different measures.

Those measures include 'political ambition,' which looks at the existing pledges made by governments; progress from major corporations on issues like 'climate finance' (new investment in efforts to curb or adapt to climate change) and 'carbon prices' (taxing carbon dioxide emitters); technological progress on factors like renewable energy adoption; as well as the potential future impact of current levels of oil, gas and coal production if they continue.

... the most alarming projection—and perhaps the most relevant in terms of assessing where the worst risk is—can be found in the fine print.

... the most important measure on the dashboard relates to the current rate of oil and gas production. Astonishingly, Schroders finds that this rate, as it stands, puts us on course to hit a global average temperature rise of 7.8℃ by 2100, if nothing changes.

The briefing clarifies that all measures on the dashboard, including oil and gas production which depends on a wide range of factors—supply, demand, the gas glut, geopolitics, developments in renewable energy and storage, and so on—will likely change over several decades.

"As a result, the dashboard conclusions must be seen as measures of the paths we are currently on ..."

... the current oil and gas scenario was derived from production data in BP's 2017 Statistical Review of World Energy report

Schroders also warns that a 6 ℃ or above pathway would lead to "up to a 50% loss in global GDP." Of course, massive GDP losses are just one element. Scenarios developed by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that a 6 ℃ average temperature rise or above will lead rapidly to an increasingly uninhabitable planet. [emphasis mine, order changed]

Global Investment Firm Warns 7.8 Degrees of Global Warming Is Possible

Views: 37

Replies to This Discussion

Human beings releasing carbon 1 1/4 million times faster that nature can sequester it provides context for Schroders' statement that "the current rate of oil and gas production. ... puts us on course to hit a global average temperature rise of 7.8℃ by 2100, if nothing changes."

plenum222 shares this at Robert Scribbler. A video of Dr. Wing's lecture is included.

Dr. Scott Wing, from the Smithsonian Museum, mentions an interesting and important calculation: 200,000,000 million years’ worth of organic material has been burned in the form of fossil fuels in the last 160 years. I find that difficult to absorb…

So, I divided it out to a per year and per day and I got the figure of 1,250,000 years’ worth is burned PER YEAR, and 3,424 years’ worth of organic material is burned as fossil fuels EACH DAY! [emphasis mine]

So often I hear or read climate deniers say we couldn't possibly be changing the planet, because we're so small compared to the planet. This ratio of our power versus nature's power is so mind-boggling I can't even comprehend it.

A very rough analogy: microbes or viruses, similarly staggeringly small compared to their host, have the power to induce significant changes in the host and even to kill it.

(The mass of planet Earth is something like 1-10 trillion times the human biomass on it -- not that different from comparing a bacterium to a single human.)

Good point!

Since the sequestration-to-burning ratio of fossil fuels was a surreal one million and 250 thousand to one, I had to review the portion of Dr.Wing's lecture again. Sure enough, plenum222 heard it correctly when he said,

... at 00:46:50, Dr. Scott Wing, from the Smithsonian Museum, mentions an interesting and important calculation: 200,000,000 million years’ worth of organic material has been burned in the form of fossil fuels in the last 160 years.

Here's the chart of energy use to which Dr. Wing refers.

Dr. Wing said,

Somebody calculated recently under the graph here, the colored part, probably represents about 200,000,000 years worth of fossil fuel accumulation, that’s been burned in 160 years.

This is a huge thing in the history of the planet. And it’s not going to go away.

200,000,000 divided by 160 does equal 1,250,000.

Also from his lecture:

4 lessons from the PETM
1. A big release of carbon warmed global climate and dissolved deep marine chalk. 
2. There were probably self-reinforcing cycles – carbon release increased temperature, which in turn released more carbon
3. Rapid global warming changed where plants & animals lived, how they interacted, and drove rapid evolution
4. The effects lasted about 200,000 years

Here's his chart for point #2.

Integrating this information into my world view will not be easy. First I have to find the reference to which Dr. Wing casually refers.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service