Slashdot Mirror
IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Action To Phase Out Fossil Fuels (bbc.com)
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a report that says global temperatures are heading towards 3 degrees C, and that the original goal of keeping the rise under 1.5 degrees C will require "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society." While the window of opportunity is not yet closed, the prospect looks unlikely and hugely expensive. BBC reports: The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards. Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and and clear. "The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to 2 degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who is a co-chair of the IPCC. "The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C -- changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
The higher ones income, in general, the greater the carbon footprint. Sounds like the Lexus Liberals could make a dent in climate change all by themselves, even if the non-believers never converted.
But why would they do that? Pfft, That wouldn't get them any attention. Where's the feel-good rush of dopamine that sccompsnies self-riteous indignation? You don't get that from quietly living your values.
But oh those rednecks that don't believe are just so infuriating. Progressives care about people. That's why they try to get them fired for wrongbadthink. Cause they care. They really care about the climate your kids will have to endure 70 years from now. No, really, they may try to cost you your job, thus making it harder to care for yiur children now, but one thing they will not tolerate is your children or grandchildren being too warm half a decade from now! That's just where they draw the line!
Yes the primary concern of the climate change believers is those gosh-darn others who don't believe that climate change is occuring. It almost makes it seem like they could not care less about the climate at all. Like maybe climate change is a dog whistle to cement one's social position as one of the 'haves', and not some trailer troll whose only post-high school options are Walmart or the military.
Why can't you poor people from Appalachia progress at the same rate as the moneyed people from gated communities and good colleges? Gosh, why do you people choose to be poor and ignorant?
They must be evil. Pure evil.
It's the only explanation.
No wait, how about some snarky one-liners! I bet THAT will solve the issue. No seriously, snarky one-lines solve everything in I'm Special cause my parents teachers and private school guidance counselors said so Land. Yes, it is a real country, look it up.
I don't have a car. Haven't flown in 10 years. Do you think the progressives thank me? You know, for living their vslues? Eh, trick question, you know they don't. They even kind of get mad when they find out. Look real disappointed. Progressives don't give a rat shit what I DO, they only care what I say. I could drive a big ol' SUV, but as long as I talked the talk, I'd be A-OK.
But they care about the climate. Oh, and look, flaming monkeys are flying out of my ass.
First, I view this report as more hyperbole and fear mongering as every other prediction put out by IPCC has proven incorrect over time. IPCC's goal is to redistribute wealth.
But that aside I'm going to ask the same question I continue to ask - what is the correct temperature and who gets to decide?
Humans have no problems living with higher temperatures, plants and animals adapt as well. The FUD about the coral reefs has already been shown by recent analysis to be bogus, the reefs do just fine. They might grow a little deeper in the water than they do today but they continue to grow just fine.
CO2 cannot be responsible for the presented temperature increase because 1 molecule out of 2500 can't increase ambient temperature by that much, however increased CO2 is absolutely responsible for any increase in foliage. Warmer temperatures equates to more arable land and more CO2 equates to more food for plants and crops. Seems like a win win to me.
But back to my original point - someone please tell me who decided what the correct temperature is supposed to be and how was it decided? We've been hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, pretty much across the spectrum at some point in the past. Humans live in much hotter, colder, wetter and dryer locations so we're not at risk.
So please enlighten me, who chooses the right temperature we're supposed to get to, and more importantly how do you propose we force the world to stop changing after we get there? How do we prevent the solar cycles that drive our climate more than anything humans do? How do we hit the magick temperature value and how do we stay there?
You aren't attempting to learn anything. You are just pointing fingers. Typical Eurosnobbery. But yeah enjoy your "clean diesel" and keep on increasing your carbon output. I am sure the EU will produce some nice glossy reports about it you can read soon. Oh I know: you can also sign some more treaties in Paris and have some lavish ceremonies and conferences about climate change. That will help.
Fast enough to now uncover all the trees and people they had covered a few thousand years ago...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What land? After 2030, supposedly there won't be any
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yeah, and you also suppress speech, political parties, and imprison people for saying mean words
Citation needed.
and ignore criminality committed by particular racial/ethnic groups
Oh, I think I get where you're coming from. What a cute little way for a racist to call attention to the inherent criminality of "particular races"
What a little bitch you are.
Ya know, if they'd stop messing with the data, and present objective results instead of panic-filled reports, it would be possible to take them seriously...
Lose original data, lose track of exactly what adjustments were made. Fail to account for poorly situated stations (UHC). Steadily reduce the number of climate monitoring stations, especially in important regions like the arctic. Satellite data showing no warming - quick, adjust it. Then publish stupid reports and articles like TFA, based on this questionable science. Creating panic apparently drives publications and funding.
I'm sure the climate is warming; this may be influenced by humans. Likely we shouldn't be pushing masses of CO2 into the atmosphere. But the climate science as currently practiced has zero credibility. We have no idea what is really happening.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.