World Facing 'Hellish' 3C of Climate Heating, UN Warns Before Cop28 (theguardian.com) 279
The world is on track for a "hellish" 3C of global heating, the UN has warned before the crucial Cop28 climate summit that begins next week in the United Arab Emirates. From a report: The report found that today's carbon-cutting policies are so inadequate that 3C of heating would be reached this century. Temperature records have already been obliterated in 2023 and intensifying heatwaves, floods and droughts have taken lives and hit livelihoods across the globe, in response to a temperature rise of 1.4C to date. Scientists say far worse is to come if temperatures continue to rise. The secretary general of the UN, Antonio Guterres, has said repeatedly the world is heading for a "hellish" future.
The UN Environment Programme (Unep) report said that implementing future policies already promised by countries would shave 0.1C off the 3C limit. Putting in place emissions cuts pledged by developing countries on condition of receiving financial and technical support would cut the temperature rise to 2.5C, still a catastrophic scenario. To get on track for the internationally agreed target of 1.5C, 22bn tonnes of CO2 must be cut from the currently projected total in 2030, the report said. That is 42% of global emissions and equivalent to the output of the world's five worst polluters: China, US, India, Russia and Japan.
The UN Environment Programme (Unep) report said that implementing future policies already promised by countries would shave 0.1C off the 3C limit. Putting in place emissions cuts pledged by developing countries on condition of receiving financial and technical support would cut the temperature rise to 2.5C, still a catastrophic scenario. To get on track for the internationally agreed target of 1.5C, 22bn tonnes of CO2 must be cut from the currently projected total in 2030, the report said. That is 42% of global emissions and equivalent to the output of the world's five worst polluters: China, US, India, Russia and Japan.
Canada.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Canadian government is just piling on carbon taxes right now. I am interested to see how many representatives they fly over there on the 12 hour flight. I will not be surprised if the number is 300 (seriously).
For all the alarms they are sounding, you would think a zoom meeting might be more appropriate.
Re:Canada.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really care about stuff like that. A few hundred people taking one or two flights isn't going to make much difference. We need to fix structural problems, not individual journeys.
Focus on the oil companies, the countries not doing enough (all of them), and taking responsibility at a national level. Canada agreed a target that would result in 2C of warming, but is on target for 4C or more, so does need to drastically cut emissions.
The only major countries on track for 1.5C are Kenya and Nigeria. China and Brazil are both ahead of their agreed targets, but still on for 3C so need to sustain the effort.
The US and Japan agreed 2C, and are on track for 3C. The EU agreed 2C and is on track for it, but needs to improve to 1.5C. The UK agreed 1.5C, but is also on track for 2C. The UK might improve in the next few years with a new government promising big investment and jobs in green industries.
Re:Canada.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing you miss is that as some countries move off of fossil fuels, it means that other countries who haven't been using as much of them as they'd otherwise like to will just pick up the slack as prices fall due to decreased demand from western countries that can pay more than anyone else for them. Unless we've got something that can be put into place in those countries as well, there's not going to be a meaningful change in global consumption of fossil fuels as poorer countries can greatly improve their standards of living through using them and will gladly do so.
Focusing on oil companies is a slogan, not a solution. Do you have an actual plan to cut emissions that isn't going to reduce standards of living or result in widespread death or starvation? If not, you don't have something that people will vote for and actually follow. Sure everyone will agree that the problem is serious and that someone ought to do something, but that's just to keep up appearances and go along with the societal consensus while not individually changing their own behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to do a lot more to make sure developing nations don't follow our example. As you say, that can't be at the expense of their quality of life.
As an example, if we don't want them to buy hundreds of millions of fossil fuel cars, we had better make sure there are really good and affordable alternatives. There are low cost and good quality EVs, but even China can't make them fast enough to satisfy demand.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to do a lot more to make sure developing nations don't follow our example. As you say, that can't be at the expense of their quality of life.
Hell, even China is basically showing that you can't really skip steps; at most you can do a speedrun through them. For example, China is only starting to get serious about pollution.
An attitude we had back during like the '60s.
I'd argue that you need to get people to at least a certain standard of living before they can start worrying about environmental stuff. Which would be USA during the 60s and 70s. Fortunately, that standard of living isn't hard to achieve these days, but you still have to get ther
Re:Canada.... (Score:5, Informative)
We need to do a lot more to make sure developing nations don't follow our example. As you say, that can't be at the expense of their quality of life.
Hell, even China is basically showing that you can't really skip steps; at most you can do a speedrun through them.
You can skip steps... but to do it the greener, cleaner technology also has to be better and cheaper. For example, much of the developing world completely skipped the step of laying copper wire everywhere for telecommunications; they jumped straight to wireless (cellular). Why? A little because it's better, but mostly because it's cheaper.
Luckily, we are getting there with electricity generation -- solar and wind are the cheapest energy sources now -- but to make it work really well we also need to make non-fossil transportation cheaper, and to make electrical storage cheaper. The path to do these things is clear, though, because the developing world doesn't build their own stuff much. What is cheap is the stuff that the world is manufacturing in large volumes.
Bottom line: The faster we move away from fossil fuels the faster we'll build the technological infrastructure that will enable the developing world to skip steps.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, and we need to invent new, environmental physics. There is no environmental crisis.
That depends on what you mean by "crisis". Climate change is real, we're causing it, and it will have disruptive effects that have the potential to be very deleterious to many regions of the world. This takes place over a time scale of decades, but the effect is cumulative, so the longer we wait to deal with it, the worse the effects will be. Is that enough to be a "crisis"?
This is just plain and simple fear mongering.
I'm not terribly happy about descriptions like "hellish." That's pretty much meaningless-- as you say, fear mongering. The phrase "slo
Re: (Score:2)
China is due to peak in the next couple of years, which would put them where Western Europe was in 1980 and the US in 2007.
They are selling a lot of EVs, and have the best battery tech. They skipped decades of combustion engines and hybrids.
They are also leading everyone else on wind energy.
They definitely have skipped a lot of the steps it took us to get here, and now we need to do the same to catch up.
China (Re:Canada....) (Score:2)
China is leading the world on new nuclear power plant construction. If you want to use China as an example of "skipping steps" on technological development then their enthusiasm for nuclear power should be included in the list on how they are advancing.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/... [world-nuclear.org]
China might be leading the world in solar power, windmills, and electric vehicles but in that effort to reduce consumption of fossil fuels is also the construction of new nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problems are made up of all of those individual decisions.
You're correct, but this is a big problem. I'm willing to make changes, BUT, doing that individually only increases my costs/lowers my standard of living, and makes no difference on its own, so until governments start forcing everyone ELSE to do it, too, I'm only hurting myself if I try to help.
EV sales are increasing [Re:Canada....] (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, EVs sales are stagnating
Actually, no, they're not, although that's hard to realize in the popular press. EV sales are increasing.
Electric cars are breaking sales records [cnn.com]
EV sales jumped 50 percent in Q3 [arstechnica.com].
Current numbers look like EV sales have grown by about 33% over 2022 (see Global EV Sales for 2023 H1 [ev-volumes.com]). Sales just aren't not increasing as fast as new models are entering the market.
and stock is piling up on dealership lots....
Primarily dealerships of companies that have just entered the EV market, and have no idea how to sell EVs or even who their customers are.
Re: EV sales are increasing [Re:Canada....] (Score:2)
Re: Canada.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Funny, I don't generally elect my representative government officials to FORCE me to do shit."
Right, because you don't care about anyone but yourself. So the rest of us have to elect representatives to force you to do shit. Guess what? You don't exist in a vacuum, more's the pity.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a baby.
Re: Canada.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and some of us don't even think it's serious.
Oh no, temps are hitting where they were when humans evolved...oh no!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
To stay at 2C, we'd need to reduce emissions by 5% every year, globally, since yesterday.
year 1: covid lockdowns.
year 2: destroy the industrial bases of Germany and Japan.
Those are the only 2 events that made emissions decline by 5% over a year in the past century.
Your list of countries is good news, and all should be commended for their efforts but one must keep in mind physics only cares about the global number.
> A few hundred people taking one or two flights isn't going to make much difference.
Enough
Re: Canada.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's $65/tonne of CO2.
How much is that for the average Canadian? I don't know. A quick search finds a stat from the EPA (which is American. More Canadians use cleaner energy) saying that the average household emits 7 tonnes of CO2. So are you saying that Canadians are spending $455 in taxes now? What about the Carbon tax rebate? how much does that negate those costs?
"Just piling on" seems like it's some kind of crushing amount of money sprung up out of no where. Please clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
It's $65/tonne of CO2.
6.5 cents Canadian per kilogram.
How much is that for the average Canadian?
Burning a gallon of gas produces about 9 kilograms of CO2, so it's roughly a tax of 59 cents (Canadian) per gallon on gasoline. Current price of unleaded in Ontario is $5.62 per gallon, so it's about ten percent tax. Don't know if I'd call that "some kind of crushing amount of money"; I'll note that it is less than the other provincial and federal tax on the gas.
Re: Canada.... (Score:2)
Except 14T per capita doesnâ(TM)t mean every individual pays $910, because much of that is emitted by industry not individuals. Actual cost per person is much lower than that.
Re: Canada.... (Score:3)
Carbon taxes and nuclear power [Re:Canada....] (Score:2)
You know, if the so called 'carbon taxes' were actually truly earmarked for building new nuclear reactors ASAP to replace all sorts of coal, gas, oil burning power plants, then it would make some sort of sense.
Turns out that, since taxes are a way of encouraging people to change their activities to account for external effects, no, it doesn't matter what use you put the tax money to.
If funding new nuclear reactors is a valuable use of tax money, it is useful whether or not money is collected from carbon taxes. And if a carbon tax is useful to get people to switch to lower carbon energy, that is useful whether or not the tax money funds nuclear reactors. The two are separate issues.
Re: (Score:2)
What will actually happen is, since there is no REAL viable alternative, we'll pay the tax, grumble and life will just be a little bit harder.
WINNING BIGLY! (Score:4, Funny)
Vote Trump in 2024 and we will make these numbers even higher!
How many humans can the planet support? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that we need to get rid of many billions of people as quickly as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
We should logically start with the people who insist that we need to reduce population and there's no other way to solve the problem, not only have you volunteered but we don't need your ignorance and negativity.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortuantely, that won't be enough. Luckily, we can add to your proposal the people actively fighting the implementation of low-carbon energy sources. Getting rid of all those anti-nuclear and anti-renewables morons will definitely help, both by decreasing population, and allowing for faster implementation of actual solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, nature will take care of that. Any species that exceeds its natural niche gets decimated massively as a result and extinction is a real possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not going extinct any time soon. Even if 6 billion die off, we're still going to be here. Just fewer of us. Maybe end up back in the dark ages. Or our rich folk will all have their fully automated fortresses and the rest of us will just be dead. Or the rich will enslave us all again if the automation doesn't work out. It's all a possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
the overlap between those people, and the people who could absolutely be classified as "diversity enthusiasts" and "mass immigration enjoyers" is effectively 100% and it's really weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many humans can the planet support? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it's just the rich people we need to get rid of.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Twelve billionaires’ climate emissions outpollute 2.1m homes, analysis finds
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite sure the rich will pay half of us to handle the other half.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many humans can the planet support? (Score:5, Informative)
The top 1% generate more than double the CO2 of the bottom 66%.
Although reducing the population would help, if efforts in that direction were focused on the Forbes top 1000, you'd solve a lot of problems with minimal reduction.
In terms of the poorest, you could improve their wellbeing and reduce their contribution to a population explosion by eliminating religious schools, mandating decent sex ed, and requiring abortions to not only be legal but free at point of provision.
Re: (Score:2)
mandating decent sex
Truer words have never been spoken. More often than not, the sex is not as good as advertised.
Re:How many humans can the planet support? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this some right wing talking point? I keep seeing it pop up in comments here.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this some right wing talking point? I keep seeing it pop up in comments here.
Sort of. It's a right-wing parody of a left-wing talking point.
They are trying to paint the left-wing as advocating murder
Not really (Score:2)
What it can't do is support 9 billion humans where approximately 1m live like God Kings and where we devote huge resources to protecting their claim on that status with enormous militaries while also building cities based on cars.
The world needs to be more cooperative than competitive, which is a tough sell especially for anyone who grew up with cold war propaganda (most of us here on
Re: (Score:2)
We're a competitive species. We'll sooner end up all dead then "get along".
Re: (Score:2)
Population's not that important. Lifestyle is.
Things that can stop being things:
- International travel. Move to another country, stop thinking that you can "go home" every year. I'm looking at you, Indians (among others).
- Beef. And I LOVE me a good BBQ.
- The local big box store for routine purchases. One Amazon truck circling the city is better than 100 people driving to get small purchases.
- Plastic wrapped everything
- Concerts. Sorry, Neil Young, but the footprint of one of your concerts is the sum of yo
Re: How many humans can the planet support? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. They have the energy requirements of a medium-sized country.
As those are waning, we are seeing the rise in large energy use for "Deep Learning"... which may look much more benign but also has societal issues.
AI is looking to be the new cryptocurrency...
Not just in energy use, but in hype and investment. Previous cryptocurrency hardware companies are producing AI hardware now. For instance, out of Bitmain came SOPHGO.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that we need to get rid of many billions of people as quickly as possible.
/earth is 97% full. Please delete anyone you can.
-- Unix fortune file, 1985
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that we need to get rid of many billions of people as quickly as possible.
And the easiest and cheapest way to do that is to do exactly what we're doing now for the next 50 years! (nothing)
Stop posting misinformation (Score:4, Interesting)
"intensifying heatwaves, floods and droughts have taken lives and hit livelihoods across the globe, in response to a temperature rise of 1.4C to date. "
This is simply not factually true. Why is Slashdot spreading this misinformation? The only way an article makes it on this site is by being selected by the editorial staff, so publishing a factually inaccurate opinion is their explicit choice.
The rise in heatwaves that exist are only in URBAN areas, and their rise tracks the growth in population. Urban heatwaves are not the source of floods and droughts. They are not in response to a temperature rise of 1.4C to date. They are in response to building roads, parking lots, houses and commercial buildings.
Slashdot, stop pushing these factually incorrect posts. You should at least insist that posts stick to evidence-based claims.
Re: (Score:3)
"While urban areas are typically warmer than the surrounding rural areas, the urban heat island effect doesn't significantly impact overall global warming. This is because scientists have taken it into account when measuring temperature changes.
"Urban heat islands are not a recent discovery. Weather watchers using basic mercury thermometers have observed that cities tend to be warmer than the nearby countryside for nearly two centuries.
"Moreover, researchers have noticed that the intensity of these heat isl
Re: (Score:3)
Might as well not bother. At this point, trust in any media is down around 30% (from a high of 72% in the 70s) according to this Gallup poll. [gallup.com]
So just proceed on with the hyperbole. It'll just keep getting worse till everyone is getting their news from TikTok and promptly disbelieving it. [pewresearch.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You might want to refresh your beliefs, and start looking at actual science. You can start by reading chapter 11 [www.ipcc.ch] of IPCC workgroup 1 report (release in August 2021). You can even jump to the sections that talk about droughts, heatwaves and floods if you ae short on time (although being short on time is not an excuse for posting random bullshit).
Some excerpts:
- "There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particula
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"intensifying heatwaves, floods and droughts have taken lives and hit livelihoods across the globe, in response to a temperature rise of 1.4C to date. "
This is simply not factually true.
It's carefully written in a way to be almost certainly true. A heat wave will be more intense if it is 1.4 degrees warmer, even if that is just a small difference, it is still a difference.
It doesn't say that there have been more heatwaves/floods/droughts because of AGW. It doesn't say that the intensification has taken more lives or hit more livelihoods than it otherwise would have.
All it says is that heatwaves, floods and droughts have taken lives, which is absolutely true. Carefully worded, and abso
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply not factually true. Why is Slashdot spreading this misinformation?
Simple: You are a complete and utter idiot and you are wrong.
Remember (Score:2, Insightful)
This is 3'C average, not 3'C uniformly over the planet. That means some areas will experience much more than a 3'C increase and others will experience much less.
The US is experiencing above average increases, so you can expect parts to experience 4 or 5 degree C increases. This will be enough to shut down parts of the power grid in places like Texas during the summer, when temperatures are already borderline lethal. You can expect the annual death toll in Texas to steadily climb each year and some inhabited
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for that alarmist bullshit you pulled out of your ass.
Re: Remember (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mexico, which lacks the kind of resources available in the US, will also suffer. You should fully expect parts of Mexico to be abandoned. Since the density of population is high and they lack the resources to convert their cities to skyscrapers, you should expect a rise in climate refugees. These will be increasingly violent as alternatives diminish and desperation sets in.
You started off ok, then wandered increasingly into fantasy. This reads like a bad science fiction story. "Bad" because it's not based in science. "Good" because it's imaginative.
Re: (Score:2)
Sharpshooters on the border.
Our military snipers need to keep their skills up to date.
And why not mine the border...make a DMZ that n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet you a thousand bucks right now that none of that happens within the next decade.
I'll have to except the power grid because dopes are pushing electric heat and transportation well beyond what baseload can handle but if you can factor out those and show that air conditioning crashed the grid then I'll allow it. If Nixon had gotten his thousand atomic energy stations then the whole point would be moot. Perhaps some day!
Go ahead and pick some hard numbers and 2033 dates from your favorite computer mod
Hellish? (Score:3)
In related news, the UN stated that the world is rapidly running out of adjectives suitable for invoking a sense of fear and crisis in its populace.
South America has been going to **** lately (Score:3)
They don't really have a lot of control over any of this since the vast majority of the emissions causing it are coming out of China & the USA. So they're just kinda boned.
Meanwhile they're having a huge problem with extremist politicians getting elected because they'll promise to solve things that can't really be solved. If your neighbor is dumping sewage on your property and they're a billionaire and you're a relatively poor farmer there's not a hell of a lot you can except hope their kids grow up to be better people and stop it...
Re: (Score:2)
Most of South America still had large population growth.
Climate change competes with soil-depletion/"overgrazing" and groundwater extraction rates which would be non renewable limits regardless of climate. (Most range grazing is overgrazing, just a question of degree.)
Re: South America has been going to **** lately (Score:2)
Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
We can stop listening to believers, deniers, and people on the fence. The climate will do what it will do, and we'll all be forced to deal with it one way or another. I'm tired of the debate, and I'm not interested in hearing about it any more, from anyone.
Could have been prevented... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are really a special kind of evil asshole. You clearly are a fanatic that cannot shut up and stop pushing his lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not just about energy in the power lines, but also about:
- Transportation. Almost only oil, except in some electric cars for personal transport here and there. And there are also enormous emissions during oil extraction and refinement. First start by replacing all subsidies to oil companies with taxes. Then we could very well bomb the superemitting oil sites.
- Agriculture. Not just about beef production, but also about deforestation, land management and waste management.
Dried marshlands emit stored me
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. Electricity by itself is only 1/4 of the problem. Except how do you expect for us to decarbonize transportation? The obvious answer is electrification. Electrification is the answer to most emissions or can be used to decrease some emissions in agriculture and heavy industry.
Cement production is only a tiny contributor to CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
Cement production is only a tiny contributor to CO2 emissions.
I'm not sure that 8% of global contributions to CO2 emissions per year (Source [princeton.edu]) is a "tiny" contributor, but you are correct in that it's one of the harder areas to optimize compared to energy generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except how do you expect for us to decarbonize transportation?
Synthesized hydrocarbon fuels, that is how to bring transportation to net zero CO2 emissions.
The obvious answer is electrification. Electrification is the answer to most emissions or can be used to decrease some emissions in agriculture and heavy industry.
Have you seen what batteries weigh compared to diesel? Soil compaction is already an issue with agriculture, running equipment off batteries would make the problem far worse. Heavy equipment sinking in the mud is a concern with heavy industry as well, it is why the lumber industry waits until the ground is frozen to haul their harvest to saw mills.
The world runs on diesel engines, and there's not likely much we ca
Re: (Score:2)
We can always go to Ammonia fuel for trucking. Which we can produce from nuclear energy, solar and wind. Easier to store than hydrogen. It is toxic so it won't be applicable for regular vehicles(batteries work better for normal vehicles anyway), but it can work in trucking and shipping. The trick is making it cheaper than diesel.
Synthesized hydrocarbons still release carbon when burned. So not exactly a great option.
Re: (Score:2)
We can always go to Ammonia fuel for trucking.
We can but it is unlikely we will. Using ammonia for fuel introduces all kinds of logistical issues. Perhaps if rolled out over time this can work, using existing ammonia distribution as a place to start, but that's a long path to replacing fossil fuels. I've seen ammonia used as a fuel in agricultural situations because farmers already buy ammonia in bulk as fertilizer, diverting some here and there to run pumps and generators isn't a big deal. Grow that into using the fuel for agricultural tractors, t
Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
There are still tons of nil wits that claim the whole thing is not real (about on the same level as COVID deniers and flat-earthers). There are tons of rich scum that does not care and rather continues to make a quick buck. There are tons of politicians that do not get what their ination causes or do not care either.
The takeaway message for me is the human race is grossly immatur and completely unable to deal with an existential crisis. That observation probably also explains the Fermi-paradox.
Yes but... (Score:2)
But what does this have to do with AI? Are there any generative models being used? Any new green tech enhanced by deep learning? We need to know the AI angle here, or why should we even read this shit?
Migration (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe, migration from across the Mediterranean has spiked since the Arab Spring. One of the main causes for those uprisings was climate change, and more specifically increase in food prices on the international markets as governments were unable to keep up with subsidizing the food for their populations.
Research like this could be pivotal, if anyone in southern U.S. actually 'believes' in research papers. Here's a recent example from Austin uni:
Unusually dry growing seasons in Central America associated with migration to the US
Lots more dramatic migration is yet to be foreseen the coming decades if climate change isn't fiercely addressed. I have zero hope for COP28. May the future prove me wrong.
Re: Migration (Score:2)
Argh. Missed the URL: https://lbj.utexas.edu/unusual... [utexas.edu] "Unusually dry growing seasons in Central America associated with migration to the US"
Hoping for geoengineering vigilantism myself (Score:2)
This will be way more effective than waiting for the rest of humanity to get its act together.
Capitalism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.... which requires exponentially growing energy usage.
Growing energy usage doesn't mean growing greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, Capitalism = death to the planet.
Capitalism is what brought you the freedom and comfort to post BS on the internet. If you don't like capitalism then you are free to go where it is not practiced. North Korea might be a good place to escape capitalism.
I don't like the term "capitalism" because it was a term created by socialists to label the wealthy as the enemy. A more accurate term is "free markets", but the socialists don't like the term "free markets" because people
BAH! (Score:2)
Time is running out. (Score:2)
There is no two ways about it. Most glaciers are history, as are quite a few forests, such as those in Germany and now apparently the Amazon. We are screwed as it is. How hard is still up to us, but I suspect that very soon modern civilisation will be at stake. And I don't like it. This effing sucks to be honest and it makes me sad and angry at the same time.
Re:doom. DOOOOOOOM (Score:5, Informative)
I skimmed the report myself and did a control-F for the 3 degree figure and couldn't find it. The numbers in the actual report are 1.5, 1.8, and 2C.
Then you are either a liar, or really bad at doing a Control-F (in which case, you would look less stupid saying that you lied). From the report:
- "A continuation of the level of climate change mitigation efforts implied by current policies is estimated to limit global warming to 3C (range: 1.9–3.8C) throughout the century with a 66 per cent chance. Warming is expected to increase further after 2100 as CO2 emissions are not yet projected to reach net-zero levels."
- "A continuation of the unconditional NDC scenario lowers this estimate to 2.9C (range: 2–3.7C), whereas the additional achievement and continuation of conditional NDCs lowers this by around 0.4C to 2.5C (range: 1.9–3.6C)."
I mean, this is literally on the first pages of the report... I guess some people will go to great lengths to deny the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
The holocene extinction event is well documented and humans will not survive it. It may last for 10 million years or so, so there's no doubt that if we don't die too fast, we may yet evolve into a species
Re: (Score:2)
Just a friendly tip, if you want anyone to read your posts format them better.
Re: (Score:3)
Page 31 of the report considers scenarios including 3C.
You have to search for the degree symbol.
Re: (Score:2)
crops will be growing better
Wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
don't see a problem : I will save money on heating, crops will be growing better, not so much snow, for me all good...
Millions of acres of crop land will no longer be arable, leading to food shortages and riots.
As to oceans warm, the food chain will change, and people who are dependent on sea creatures for food will start to starve.
Millions (if not hundreds of millions) of desperate climate refugees will stream north and south, with governments unable to to contain it.
Wildfires will burn and wa
Re: (Score:2)
I expect you will also enjoy the draughts, the storms, the flooding and all the other harmless side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a problem : I will save money on heating, crops will be growing better ...
Some crops will grow better. Some crops will grow worse. Which crops grow in which locations will change.
Worse, weather patterns will shift, and some areas which currently get adequate rain will get less rain, and thus be less good for crops. Other areas which adequate rain will get too much rain.
If these changes happen faster than we, and the ecology that we live in, can adapt to, is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much in Amazon, which is drying out. Nor in Kansas which just did dry out this last summer. The climate has also made it harder to grow fruit in Michigan.
And just to harden the blow a bit with disease, those nasty mosquitos that spread various diseases are now having an easier time moving north in the Northern Hemisphere. It seems they really like warm climates. Too bad you cannot grok that.
The island nations in the Pacific are slowly being swamped by sea level rise. Can the people come here and live
Re: (Score:2)
"1,600 Scientists Sign Declaration Denouncing Climate Change Hoax"
This has already been debunked so many times, but still fun to watch. Amongst those 1600 signers, none works in the field of climate science. This is as if you, who are likely working in IT, signs a declaration regarding the usage of pesticides in wheat fields. There can be 1600 of you signing this declaration, it still doesn't mean you are right and get to overthrow the actual evidence and conclusions by scientists who are experts on this topic. Hell, there can be 1600000 of you, it still doesn't make you
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. But unfortunately, humans are not plants, and the impacts of climate change is not that the air will be so concentrated in CO2 that we won't be able to breathe it.
This is what [kym-cdn.com] you're thinking of. If we go on the assumption we are living in a simulation, this is merely the sim raising the temperature to see which will last longer. Plants or humans.
What's the Cretaceous got to do with it? (Score:5, Informative)
if this is remotely close to being true, we are screwed.
Good news! It isn't remotely close to being true. "Concentrations of atmospheric CO have been in long-term decline since the start of the [C]retaceous period.
You are aware that the Cretaceous started 145 million years ago? A decline "since the start of the Cretaceous" means about 10 ppm per million years. That's so slow that you wouldn't measure the change over the 10,000 year history of the human race. Indeed, the Cretaceous was about 5 degrees C warmer than today, but you can't really compare temperature changes over millions of years with temperature changes over a period of decades, which is what we're currently seeing.
Science tells us that the threshold below which plant life can no longer perform photosynthesis and at which all plant life will cease stands at around 150 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO".
Not sure why you think this is relevant. The current problem is increasing CO2, not decreasing. There is no danger of reaching CO2 too low for photosynthesis.
Re: way too late... (Score:2)
The cretinacious period started in November 2016.
There's 50% of doctors that aren't as smart as the other 50%.
There's 50% of mechanics that aren't as smart as the other 50%.
And there's 50% of scientists that aren't as smart as the other 50%.
That 1,600 scientists signed this indicates to me that they're either 1,600 of the dumbest 10%, or 1,600 of the most venal, or more likely a mix of both.
Gee, thanks for helping the planet burn, guy.
Re: way too late... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not you in particular, but I see a lot of posts claiming how bad China's emissions are (which they are), but it's pretty important to note that all those power plants are powering factories that produce the bazillions of gadgets and widgets that the bought by US and Europe. They won't be producing all that if we (collectively, the western nations) didn't buy them. It's kinda silly for the US/Europ to outsource the factories and pollution, buy the resulting output, and claim that the pollution is all China
Re: China! (Score:2)
Lots of tumbleweed in your area, is there?
[China] "will build as much new solar capacity this year as the total installed capacity in the U.S."
and
"Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China's total installed capacity for power generation."
https://www.reuters.com/sustai... [reuters.com]
That's what you would know, too, but instead you choose to get your updates from the local MAGA radio station or so it seems.