IPCC Report Reveals 'Bleak and Brutal Truth' About Climate Emergency

[Loulit01]

'Climate Revolution': Scientists Launch Global Civil Disobedience Campaign

"Scientist Rebellion will be on the streets between April 4th and 9th, acting like our house is on fire. Because it is."

www.commondreams.org

Excellent!

 

[PoS]

LOL scientists? More like apocalyptic neo-luddites.

 

[bluesmoke]

LOL scientists? More like apocalyptic neo-luddites.

A neo-luddite is against the advancement of, or new, technology as being a threat to the way things are, or were, being old tech. Renewables are New Tech, fossil fuel is Old Tech. A neo is afraid of NT. Scientists would be anything but neo-luddites. It's the neo-luddites clinging to fossil fuels that are leading us into apocalypse. You've got it bassackwards.

 

[longview]

A neo-luddite is against the advancement of, or new, technology as being a threat to the way things are, or were, being old tech. Renewables are New Tech, fossil fuel is Old Tech. A neo is afraid of NT. Scientists would be anything but neo-luddites. It's the neo-luddites clinging to fossil fuels that are leading us into apocalypse. You've got it bassackwards.

To me, the only path forward towards a sustainable energy future within the framework of existing technology, is
hydrocarbon energy storage, yet people here argue that battery electric vehicles will save the planet.
For the purposes of this discussions the luddites, are those who refuse to consider all the options, even when they
know that their choice will only have a limited results over a long period of time.

 

[PoS]

A neo-luddite is against the advancement of, or new, technology as being a threat to the way things are, or were, being old tech. Renewables are New Tech, fossil fuel is Old Tech. A neo is afraid of NT. Scientists would be anything but neo-luddites. It's the neo-luddites clinging to fossil fuels that are leading us into apocalypse. You've got it bassackwards.

LOL first of all, wind and solar power isnt new tech. They are old, and very unreliable. Windmills have been around way longer than the ICE, so once again you blatantly display an appalling lack of knowledge in history.

Secondly, neo-luddites demand destruction and banning of technology, which is what climate activists are demanding they do to more efficient fossil fueled engines.

So yes, my description is apt. Climate nuts are indeed apocalyptic neo-luddites.

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL first of all, wind and solar power isnt new tech. They are old, and very unreliable. Windmills have been around way longer than the ICE, so once again you blatantly display an appalling lack of knowledge in history.

Secondly, neo-luddites demand destruction and banning of technology, which is what climate activists are demanding they do to more efficient fossil fueled engines.

So yes, my description is apt. Climate nuts are indeed apocalyptic neo-luddites.

Fossil fuels aren’t just driving climate change.

They’re killing people daily, unlike renewable energy sources.

WHO: 99% of World Population Breathes in Polluted Air

Around 13 million people die every year from environmental causes, including more than seven million who are killed each year from exposure to air pollution

www.voanews.com

 

[longview]

Fossil fuels aren’t just driving climate change.

They’re killing people daily, unlike renewable energy sources.

WHO: 99% of World Population Breathes in Polluted Air

Around 13 million people die every year from environmental causes, including more than seven million who are killed each year from exposure to air pollution

www.voanews.com

A quote from your article,

GENEVA —
The World Health Organization reports 13 million people die every year from environmental causes, including more than seven million who are killed each year from exposure to air pollution.

Now let's consider how many of the supposed 7 million who were killed from air pollution, dies because the CO2 level was 415 ppm?

 

[Napoleon]

To me, the only path forward towards a sustainable energy future within the framework of existing technology, is
hydrocarbon energy storage, yet people here argue that battery electric vehicles will save the planet.
For the purposes of this discussions the luddites, are those who refuse to consider all the options, even when they
know that their choice will only have a limited results over a long period of time.

In America, the vast majority of our carbon emissions are produced by the transportation sector. That’s why the focus is on electric vehicles. Unfortunately for us, they’re still a luxury item with practically no infrastructure to support them.

 

[EdwinWillers]

"Rebellion"
"Revolution"
"Civil disobedience"
"Injustice"
"Action"
"Crisis"
"Emergency"
"Compulsory"
"Total catastrophe"
"Criminal failure"
"Ecocide" (a term they made up)

....but not to ignore their real focus: the "Wealthy"

These aren't the measured words of scientists. They are the emotional conniption fits and ranting paroxysms of extremists and radicals convinced they know better than the world they see around them, but a world which they think isn't giving way to their apocalyptic demands. @PoS : You coined it perfectly, sir - "apocalyptic neo-luddites." 👍

And this isn't the language of "science." It's the language of self-indulgent fear-mongering and authoritarianism.

This is, in fact not a science movement at all, but a social one, one approaching the logical extreme of its original charter - the assumptive control of society under the guise of a manufactured crisis which took them several decades to wordsmith themselves.

 

[longview]

In America, the vast majority of our carbon emissions are produced by the transportation sector. That’s why the focus is on electric vehicles. Unfortunately for us, they’re still a luxury item with practically no infrastructure to support them.

Which is why making the fuel for all existing vehicles carbon neutral, would reduce emissions faster.
The path would support all vehicles, including jets and heavy trucks, and already has the complete distribution infrastructure in place.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

To me, the only path forward towards a sustainable energy future within the framework of existing technology, is
hydrocarbon energy storage

That is a very exciting technology.

In my view it just has to be totally comprehensive. Wind/solar/hydro where it makes sense, nuclear to fill in the gaps those technologies have. And yes, hydrocarbon energy storage will have to play a key role. We simply can't make enough batteries to store all the energy we need to, at least with current battery technology.

 

[longview]

That is a very exciting technology.

In my view it just has to be totally comprehensive. Wind/solar/hydro where it makes sense, nuclear to fill in the gaps those technologies have. And yes, hydrocarbon energy storage will have to play a key role. We simply can't make enough batteries to store all the energy we need to, at least with current battery technology.

Exactly, for a fixed amount of wind and solar there will always be seasonal surpluses, without massive storage,
those surpluses will be wasted as heat. Hydrocarbon energy storage has the capacity to move surpluses seasonally,
from Fall and Spring, to Winter and Summer.

 

[Germinator]

Fossil fuels aren’t just driving climate change.

They’re killing people daily, unlike renewable energy sources.

WHO: 99% of World Population Breathes in Polluted Air

Around 13 million people die every year from environmental causes, including more than seven million who are killed each year from exposure to air pollution

www.voanews.com

fossil fuels AND so called renewable energy sources are all doubled edge swords,... by this I mean energy makes life for people more comfortable AND at the same time sets the conditions for the demise of life as we know it

take nuclear power for example, its a carbon free energy source BUT though about what to do w/ spent fuel has not been accounted for,... so its a ticking time bomb across the USA



then there is the issue of how easy it is now for people to get around (especially in the USA), but the cost for using gasoline in cars is,... one gal of gas that gets put into a car releases just about 20 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere (which is a long lived stable green house gas that traps infrared energy)

sure there are feel good programs to plant trees that sequester carbon,... but if one looks into the science an average tree in the tropics removes only about 50 lbs of CO2 each year



bottom line science has shown humanity is dramatically changing the composition of the atmosphere and life on the planet is having a difficult time adapting to all the pollution (i.e. various greenhouse gases) humans have created

 

[longview]

fossil fuels AND so called renewable energy sources are all doubled edge swords,... by this I mean they make life for people more comfortable AND at the same time set the conditions for the demise of life as we know it

take nuclear power for example, its a carbon free energy source BUT though about what to do w/ spent fuel has not been accounted for,... so its a ticking time bomb across the USA



then there is the issue of how easy it is now for people to get around (especially in the USA), but the cost for using gasoline in cars it one gal of gas that gets put into a car releases just about 20 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere (which is a long lived stable green house gas that traps infrared energy)

sure there are feel good programs to plant trees that sequester carbon,... but if one looks into the science an average tree in the tropics removes only about 50 lbs of CO2 each year



bottom line science has shown humanity is dramatically changing the composition of the atmosphere and life on the planet is having a difficult time adapting to all the pollution humans have created

Yes, a 6 lb gallon of gasoline when burned, releases ~20 lbs of CO2, but on the other side of the coin creating 6 lbs of any biomass,
requires the same 20 lbs of CO2. Our Biosphere is currently removing about 18.75 GtCO2 annually, roughly 48% of total emissions.
If we start making carbon neutral fuels, new carbon emissions from all forms of transport will basically stop,
and total emissions would be cut by about 1/3. Combined with other conservation measures, we could be
to a point where CO2 growth stops by 2050.

 

[Germinator]

Yes, a 6 lb gallon of gasoline when burned, releases ~20 lbs of CO2, but on the other side of the coin creating 6 lbs of any biomass,
requires the same 20 lbs of CO2. Our Biosphere is currently removing about 18.75 GtCO2 annually, roughly 48% of total emissions.
If we start making carbon neutral fuels, new carbon emissions from all forms of transport will basically stop,
and total emissions would be cut by about 1/3. Combined with other conservation measures, we could be
to a point where CO2 growth stops by 2050.

"If we [i.e. humanity] starts"

that is a big "if"

I say that because published studies show people have no understanding about the science

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.1218

actual truth is people in general way over estimate understanding of the issue



and what actually is happening is a domino effect,... where small changes leads to a total collapse of life as we know it

A Domino The Size Of A Tic Tac Could Topple A Building

Starting with a 5 millimeter domino, the 29th in a series would be as tall as the Empire State Building.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[longview]

"If we [i.e. humanity] starts"

that is a big "if"

I say that because published studies show people have no understanding about the science

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.1218

actual truth is people in general way over estimate understanding of the issue



and what actually is happening is a domino effect,... where small changes leads to a total collapse of life as we know it

A Domino The Size Of A Tic Tac Could Topple A Building

Starting with a 5 millimeter domino, the 29th in a series would be as tall as the Empire State Building.

www.businessinsider.com

It is not a big "if" but almost an absolute certainty.
Consider that no one is going to give up their modern lifestyle, they will cut back if forced to by economics.
The price of oil will likely not come down much because while peak oil may be a myth, peak cheap/easy oil is not.
We have passed the point where the available oil is cheap and easy to find and extract.
This is evidenced by things like fracking and tar sands extraction,
(we would not be doing these more expensive things if we did have to.).
If you read the actual scientific publications, almost no one is saying that the changes from AGW
will cause the Earth to become uninhabitable. If you think otherwise, then please cite and quote
the passages that led you to that conclusion?

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, a 6 lb gallon of gasoline when burned, releases ~20 lbs of CO2, but on the other side of the coin creating 6 lbs of any biomass,
requires the same 20 lbs of CO2. Our Biosphere is currently removing about 18.75 GtCO2 annually, roughly 48% of total emissions.
If we start making carbon neutral fuels, new carbon emissions from all forms of transport will basically stop,
and total emissions would be cut by about 1/3. Combined with other conservation measures, we could be
to a point where CO2 growth stops by 2050.

You seem to be unaware that the biomass that is being converted to CO2 has been buried in the ground for millions of years, and its not turning into biomass any time soon because we are not in the Carboniferous Age anymore.

 

[Threegoofs]

A quote from your article,

Now let's consider how many of the supposed 7 million who were killed from air pollution, dies because the CO2 level was 415 ppm?

Why would you do that?

Oh, right. Because you are willfully ignorant of the problem of CO2 accumulation.

Read the 'impacts' section of the IPCC and get back to us.

 

[longview]

You seem to be unaware that the biomass that is being converted to CO2 has been buried in the ground for millions of years, and its not turning into biomass any time soon because we are not in the Carboniferous Age anymore.

Actually biomass is being created every day the sun shines on Earth, and the biomass created today,
is being created with CO2 currently in the atmosphere!

 

[longview]

Why would you do that?

Oh, right. Because you are willfully ignorant of the problem of CO2 accumulation.

Read the 'impacts' section of the IPCC and get back to us.

So you are refusing to answer the question!
It is not the CO2 level that is killing people, but actual air pollution,
no one is dying because of the CO2 level being 415 ppm

 

[Threegoofs]

So you are refusing to answer the question!
It is not the CO2 level that is killing people, but actual air pollution,
no one is dying because of the CO2 level being 415 ppm

Right.

Whats your point?

Its the other pollutants from fossil fuel burning that are causing the deaths.

So my point is that its not just the GHG emissions from fossil fuels that are causing substantial harm, its also the particulates and other gases (SO2, NOx) that are causing issues.

 

[longview]

Right.

Whats your point?

Its the other pollutants from fossil fuel burning that are causing the deaths.

So my point is that its not just the GHG emissions from fossil fuels that are causing substantial harm, its also the particulates and other gases (SO2, NOx) that are causing issues.

The point is that modern power plants and cars with catalytic converters emit almost no SO2 and NOx.

 

[Threegoofs]

The point is that modern power plants and cars with catalytic converters emit almost no SO2 and NOx.

That’s A point, but not THE point.



Lots of things emit pollutants.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

 

[longview]

That’s A point, but not THE point.



Lots of things emit pollutants.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

So what percentage of annual fossil fuel use do home stoves make up?
https://www.livemint.com/opinion/on...gas-destroying-the-planet-11623586079474.html

Of the natural gas burned in American homes, just 2.8% is used for cooking, according to a 2015 survey by the US Energy Information Administration.

So you have identified something that consumes only 2.8% of the natural gas used in the country,
and only a tiny fraction of the total of fossil fuel emissions.

 

[Threegoofs]

So what percentage of annual fossil fuel use do home stoves make up?
https://www.livemint.com/opinion/on...gas-destroying-the-planet-11623586079474.html

So you have identified something that consumes only 2.8% of the natural gas used in the country,
and only a tiny fraction of the total of fossil fuel emissions.

And the leaks from the pipelines, the leakage from transport, the leaks from drilling….

And that’s just a drop in the bucket.

Diesel trucks, airplanes, ships, small engines all emit a ton of pollutants. Cars in the US have low emissions, but that’s because the government has forced them to. You know- over the objections of your compatriots who scream about CAFE standards for the last 30 years. The rest of the world doesn’t necessarily do the same.