Slashdot Mirror
3-5 Degree Rise in Arctic Temperatures Called 'Inevitable' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
Sharp and potentially devastating temperature rises of 3C to 5C in the Arctic are now inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement, research has found.
Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN. Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect. "What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic," said Joyce Msuya, the acting executive director of UN Environment...
Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C by the century's end, compared with the baseline average from 1986 to 2005, according to the study from UN Environment. That is because so much carbon has already been poured into the atmosphere. The oceans also have become vast stores of heat, the effect of which is being gradually revealed by changes at the poles and on global weather systems, and will continue to be felt for decades to come.
The findings were presented at the UN Environment assembly Wednesday, where a report written by 250 scientists and experts from over 70 countries also warned that "damage to the planet is so dire that people's health will be increasingly threatened unless urgent action is taken."
Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN. Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect. "What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic," said Joyce Msuya, the acting executive director of UN Environment...
Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C by the century's end, compared with the baseline average from 1986 to 2005, according to the study from UN Environment. That is because so much carbon has already been poured into the atmosphere. The oceans also have become vast stores of heat, the effect of which is being gradually revealed by changes at the poles and on global weather systems, and will continue to be felt for decades to come.
The findings were presented at the UN Environment assembly Wednesday, where a report written by 250 scientists and experts from over 70 countries also warned that "damage to the planet is so dire that people's health will be increasingly threatened unless urgent action is taken."
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!
Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.
Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.
One thing has been very consistent - the fact that the "solution", regardless of the problem, is for rich countries of the west to be subject to draconian restrictions, while paying massive wealth redistribution/"reparations" to the lesser countries. While allowing the same lesser countries to spew the alleged problem greenhouse gasses with no real restrictions at all. This was the solution in the 70's when the concern was an "inevitable" ice age, now it is the solution for the "inevitable" greenhouse effects.
Nonsense, facts don't support it.
The big emitter is China, doesn't matter what the USA does now. The next big up and coming emitter will be India.
It matters very much what Asia does, makes sense it's 2/3 the population of the Earth. It does not matter what the USA or Europe does.
Is NOTHING compared to the age of the Earth. It's been warmer, it's been colder, and NOT because of man, but because of that "tiny" star about 93,000,000 miles away, but, socialist have indoctrinated a couple generation of the world's population into believing it is all man's fault, to enable the world to surrender itself to a "new world order" of the United Nations. Sad that people are that naive to believe man, short of a global thermonuclear war, could "change the climate" Look up the data between earth temperatures and the sunspot activity, or lack of activity.
"That renewables are not going to save us." - Actually the market has decided that's more worth investing in than nuclear. It's not "environmentalists" - it's investors. That's why private nuclear is not succeeding, only subsidized.
Nuclear power = socialism.
Now once you accept you're dumping huge public monies into it, how much you get for the dollar is a required metric - GAO. Solar/wind beats nuclear by an order of MAGNITUDE on price per watt. There's no battle there.
Renewables won in the free market, that's why people are investing in them and they're the #1 growth sector as nuclear all but dies out, in the short term. In the long term, investment in nuclear may bring it back - differently.
That's a long way off, and your dishonesty until then probably doesn't help your argument much.
If you drive a gas powered car or use electricity generated from fossil fuels, then you have no place to complain because you are part of the problem.
If you drive an electric car, that is because nerds designed a better battery.
If you get your electricity from solar, it is because nerds designed better panels.