Climate Change Report Actually Understates Threats (thebulletin.org)

"Dire as it is, the latest IPCC report is actually too optimistic," writes Slashdot reader Dan Drollette. "It ignores the risk of self-reinforcing climate feedbacks pushing the planet into chaos beyond human control. So says a team of climate experts, including the winner of the 1995 Nobel for his work on depletion of the ozone layer." From their article: These cascading feedbacks include the loss of the Arctic's sea ice, which could disappear entirely in summer in the next 15 years. The ice serves as a shield, reflecting heat back into the atmosphere, but is increasingly being melted into water that absorbs heat instead. Losing the ice would tremendously increase the Arctic's warming, which is already at least twice the global average rate. This, in turn, would accelerate the collapse of permafrost, releasing its ancient stores of methane, a super climate pollutant 30 times more potent in causing warming than carbon dioxide.

By largely ignoring such feedbacks, the IPCC report fails to adequately warn leaders about the cluster of six similar climate tipping points that could be crossed between today's temperature and an increase to 1.5 degrees -- let alone nearly another dozen tipping points between 1.5 and 2 degrees. These wildcards could very likely push the climate system beyond human ability to control. As the UN Secretary General reminded world leaders last month, "We face an existential threat. Climate change is moving faster than we are.⦠If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences."
In related news, a court in The Hague "has upheld a historic legal order on the Dutch government to accelerate carbon emissions cuts, a day after the world's climate scientists warned that time was running out to avoid dangerous warming. Appeal court judges ruled that the severity and scope of the climate crisis demanded greenhouse gas reductions of at least 25% by 2020 -- measured against 1990 levels -- higher than the 17% drop planned by Mark Rutte's liberal administration. The ruling -- which was greeted with whoops and cheers in the courtroom -- will put wind in the sails of a raft of similar cases being planned around the world, from Norway to New Zealand and from the UK to Uganda."

Meanwhile, a new article in GQ cites estimates that more than 70 percent of global emissions come from just 100 companies, complaining that "there is no 'free market' incentive to prevent disaster."

Comments

Re:Germany halved its coal use

[110010001000]

Wrong. In addition Germany increased their emissions in 2016, 2017 and will again in 2018. But don't let facts interfere with perception: https://www.ft.com/content/7f2...

No one belives this

[blindseer]

I heard of people talking on the radio of a new mall going up in Miami, IIRC, supposedly the largest in the nation. If Miami is supposed to be underwater in 10 years then how did anyone get funding for this? How did this get approved by the city? How did this mall get insurance? These people talking on the radio were mocking all the global warming alarmists. If enough people believed that CO2 was such a potential harm then they would be able to raise enough money to fix the problem. Instead they put money into shopping malls in Florida.

So, why is there not enough money to fix the problem?

I'm guessing it's because we've been hearing about how coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years for 40 years now. The predictions of doom never come close to reality and so no one is listening any more.

Here's what boggles me most, there's no real demand from these doom and gloom types for nuclear power. Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output per energy produced of any energy source we know of today, even the IPCC agrees on this.

But nuclear power is expensive! More expensive than the end of all life on Earth?
But nuclear power is dangerous! More dangerous than large numbers of coastal cities being underwater?
But nuclear power isn't near as good as wind and solar power! Who says we should only use nuclear power? Let's have wind, solar, and nuclear. You know, that "all the above" energy strategy that so many politicians keep talking about?
But all the nuclear waste! Is nuclear waste any kind of threat to our safety by comparison to global warming? This is a political problem, we know we can keep the waste contained but the politicians keep thinking up new ways on how to delay the opening of proper waste containment sites.
But some terrorist could use the fuel to make a weapon! Is terrorism a threat greater than global warming? It's not like we can't work on more than one problem at the same time. Let's build some nuclear power plants and shoot some terrorists. If nuclear power plants attract the terrorists then put people with guns around the power plants. I have heard from reliable sources that there are generals and admirals just desperate for cheap and reliable power for military bases in the USA. I also have heard from reliable sources that the US Navy has a lot of people trained in the safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants. Put some nuclear power plants on some military bases. I have heard from reliable sources that the US military is quite capable of keeping their bases secure.
But nuclear power is scary! More scary than the end of all life on Earth?

Let's talk solutions to the problem. We've tried with solar and wind as solutions for decades now and they have not done all that well in displacing coal for power generation. Again, nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output of any energy source we have available today. Any problems that one might come up with on deploying more nuclear power is something we can also deal with as we shoot terrorists and put up windmills. Someone might dispute how much CO2 nuclear power produces and claim that hydro or wind take first place but nuclear is certainly in the top three as means to produce power with least CO2 emitted. Let's do "all the above", because our survival depends on it.

I'll believe that global warming from CO2 is a real threat when these global warming alarmists embrace nuclear power as a solution. Claiming nuclear power is a greater threat to humanity than global warming is getting real hard to wrap my head around. Bringing up nuclear power accidents from 50 year old nuclear reactors is nonsense, no one builds reactors like that any more. Even if we did that still means that we'd potentially save humanity from certain destruction even if it means rendering small portions of the planet as radioactive wastelands from more accidents in the future.

What's the greater threat, nuclear power or global warming? If the answer is nuclear power is the greater threat then I guess we're all just doomed.