.png)
Below is an article on IFR that was published on ABC Unleashed earlier this week. It’s a sensible, pragmatic look at this technology, from another person who has no vested interest in IFR other than he wishes to ensure that we have the means to fully decarbonise our economy. Geoff is a regularly contributor to […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 157 Comments »
[BWB Note: I’m a bit tight for time right now, but Andrew Glikson saves the day with another great post, this time elaborating on some of the ‘options’ we made need to face if we delay too long in cutting carbon emissions. For earlier discussions of this topic on BraveNewClimate, see here and here.] Guest […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Future shock | Tagged: | 27 Comments »
Here is a piece I wrote that was published on 23 March 2009 in the Earth Hour special lift out of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. ——————————————————————— If the planet is like an oven, it’s still possible to turn down the temperature, writes Barry Brook. The number is 300 and the methods will […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | Tagged: | 24 Comments »
Most of the information you need to become ‘clued up’ on Integral Fast Reactor nuclear power is in written form of one sort of another: books, popular science articles, blog posts, and so on. But there’s plenty more out there. One fun way to get some ‘passive learning’ is to sit back and let your […]
Filed under: Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 12 Comments »
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has released a detailed analysis of the 2009 southern Australian heatwave. Some of the figures presented are staggering, with numerous temperature records smashed. Indeed, a colleague at BOM pointed out just how exceptional this event was: “Given that this was the hottest day on record on top of the […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Ecological impacts | Tagged: | 88 Comments »
Well, if you’ve been reading the BraveNewClimate blog regularly, then I’m sure you’ve certainly heard quite enough of my opinions on climate science and its policy implications this year! My thanks to all regular and occasional BNC readers for taking an interest in staying up-to-date with the latest issues on global warming — and perhaps […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | Tagged: | 10 Comments »
So what are the priorities for Obama, and indeed, for world governments, as they gather to discuss the next international treaty at Poznan this month? Can something meaningful be hammered out in Copenhagen in a years time? What are the implications of us collectively making a choice to do nothing, or at least very little? […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Emissions reduction, Future shock, Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | Tagged: | 23 Comments »
Nuclear energy? Pah! Too dangerous (risk of meltdown or weapons proliferation), too expensive, too slow to come on line, insufficient uranium reserves to power more than a small fraction of the world’s energy demand, blah di blah blah blah blah. There is certainly plenty of opposition out there to nuclear energy in any way, shape […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 44 Comments »
In Part II, Hansen looks at policy options required to drag us out of the Sustainability Emergency. It is self-explanatory, but I thought it worth adding some notes on a cap-and-trade versus a carbon tax. Which is better? Cap-and-Trade. Pros: (i) Cap reductions ensure falling emissions – in theory; (ii) Reduces inefficiencies or overpricing; (iii) […]
Filed under: Ecological impacts | Tagged: | 10 Comments »
It would be an understatement of epic proportions to say that President-elect Barack Obama has a big job ahead of him come January 2009. Plenty of people will be giving him ‘advice’ – some good, most not (if the history of vested interests twisting the political process over the last few decades is any guide). […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Future shock | Tagged: | 9 Comments »
Below is a statement prepared by Dr Barrie Pittock and Dr Andrew Glikson, which was co-signed by 40 leading environmental scientists. As noted in the media interest that followed this, the statement’s authors sought support primarily from non-climate scientists to refute the misconception that the only researchers concerned about global warming were climate scientists. I […]
Filed under: Renewable planet | Tagged: | 31 Comments »
Some climate scientists choose not to talk specifically about emissions reductions. Dr James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University is one of them. Prof John Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research is another. Instead they refer to a level of atmospheric CO2 (plus other greenhouse gases that […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, Future shock | Tagged: | 31 Comments »
Records of abrupt climate events in the recent history of Earth suggest current emission reduction targets fall short of preventing carbon and ice/melt feedback loops and consequent runaway greenhouse effects Andrew Glikson (editing and hyperlinking by Barry Brook) Earth and paleo-climate research, Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University Summary: Current CO2 (carbon dioxide) […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Ecological impacts, Future shock | Tagged: | 33 Comments »
Guest Post by Dr Andrew Glikson (former Principal Research Scientist, AGSO; Visiting Research Fellow, Australian National University) and Dr Barrie Pittock (Honorary Fellow, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; former leader, Climate Impact Group, CSIRO). THE GLOBAL VIEW In a recent published statement (18 May, 2007) Professor James Hansen, NASA’s Chief Climate Scientist, states: ‘The Earth […]
Filed under: Ecological impacts, Future shock | Tagged: | 34 Comments »
 | Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
| Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Cyril R. on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | David B. Benson on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Ms.Perps on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Tom Blees on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Marion Brook on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | grlcowan on Open Thread 21 |
 | harrywr2 on The Fukushima Question: How cl… |
| John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | Eclipse Now on Open Thread 21 |
| Cyril R on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
| Cyril R on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Roger Clifton on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
