Yet more alarming headlines.

[longview]

As Biden prepares for climate summit, U.N. says the world is 'on the verge of the abyss'
"A key goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change is to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the U.N. report warns that doing so will require a massive effort from the governments of the world.

“The data in this report show that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times, meaning that time is fast running out to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a foreword to the report. “We need to do more, and faster, now.”"
I look at articles like this, and think, well GISS is 1.05C above the pre-1900 average, but about .3C of that is thought to be natural.
It almost sound like the doing "something" is favored over doing something that might actually address the real issue.
Modern human society requires energy, and until they address that, emission cuts are sort of a joke.

 

[Mycroft]

As Biden prepares for climate summit, U.N. says the world is 'on the verge of the abyss'
"A key goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change is to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the U.N. report warns that doing so will require a massive effort from the governments of the world.

“The data in this report show that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times, meaning that time is fast running out to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a foreword to the report. “We need to do more, and faster, now.”"
I look at articles like this, and think, well GISS is 1.05C above the pre-1900 average, but about .3C of that is thought to be natural.
It almost sound like the doing "something" is favored over doing something that might actually address the real issue.
Modern human society requires energy, and until they address that, emission cuts are sort of a joke.

Obvious questions not answered...

1. What is the current global temperature? In other words, how far are we from their limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius?

2. The claim is that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times. How do they know this? What was the global mean temperature during pre-industrial times?​

In any case, the biggest question that nobody seems to want to consider is this: What is the cost...and who is going to pay it?

 

[Subieguy]

Obvious questions not answered...

1. What is the current global temperature? In other words, how far are we from their limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius?​

​

2. The claim is that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times. How do they know this? What was the global mean temperature during pre-industrial times?​

In any case, the biggest question that nobody seems to want to consider is this: What is the cost...and who is going to pay it?

If we aren't able to stop putting so much carbon in the atmosphere the ongoing costs will probably be in the hundreds of billions to trillions at some point. Better to start limiting/removing carbon now as opposed to taking the slow road IMO.

 

[ataraxia]

Obvious questions not answered...

1. What is the current global temperature? In other words, how far are we from their limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius?​

​

2. The claim is that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times. How do they know this? What was the global mean temperature during pre-industrial times?​

In any case, the biggest question that nobody seems to want to consider is this: What is the cost...and who is going to pay it?

Well, it’s good to see we are finally moving on from saying the problem does not exist.

In answer to your first two questions,

Exactly How Much Has the Earth Warmed? And Does It Matter?

There is ongoing debate about exactly how much the Earth has warmed since the Industrial Revolution, partly due to uncertainties in both historical and recent global temperatures. That’s unlikely to change anyone’s mind about the urgency of reducing fossil fuel usage and emissions.

www.forbes.com

And in answer to your “biggest question,

Ten simple ways to act on climate change

We know that climate change is happening – but there are plenty of things individuals can do to help mitigate it. Here’s your handy guide to the most effective strategies.

www.bbc.com

 

[OrphanSlug]

As a means of pure political appeasement, the UN has no choice now but to side with alarmists and use "verge of the abyss" and other rhetoric to make their point. We have no real expectation of headlines saying "there is room for improvement" or anything reasonable.

 

[longview]

Obvious questions not answered...

1. What is the current global temperature? In other words, how far are we from their limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius?​

​

2. The claim is that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times. How do they know this? What was the global mean temperature during pre-industrial times?​

In any case, the biggest question that nobody seems to want to consider is this: What is the cost...and who is going to pay it?

Based on the 3 main data sets, our temperature is about 1.1 C above the pre 1900 average.
The pre 1900 average is roughly -.21 C in GISS, but closer to -.3C in HadCrut4.
The accuracy of the pre 1900 temps are thought to be ±0.1°C.
The cost depends on what they want to do, with the taxpayer and consumer, as always footing the bill.
The way I see it, the sooner they address that real problem facing Humanity, (Not CO2),
market forces will take care of any issues with CO2 as a side issue, without any changes in regulation.
Oil will increase in price on it's own, and the cheap easy oil is used up, and at about $90 a barrel,
the refineries will see greater profit, from making their own feedstock, as opposed to buying oil.
Making your own hydrocarbon fuel, requires a whole lot of carbon, (~ 4 lbs for each gallon of fuel),
and the source for that carbon, will likely be existing CO2 sources, or directly from the atmosphere.
In ether case the fuel will be carbon neutral when burned, as long as the source for the electricity was carbon free.

 

[ataraxia]

As a means of pure political appeasement, the UN has no choice now but to side with alarmists and use "verge of the abyss" and other rhetoric to make their point. We have no real expectation of headlines saying "there is room for improvement" or anything reasonable.

It’s not about the UN. The UN has been basing its recommendations on what is coming from the scientific community. And sometimes an emergency just has to be called what it is. Sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade.

Here's How Scientists Want Biden to Take on Climate Change

Ambitions include promoting electric vehicles and incorporating environmental justice

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[longview]

Well, it’s good to see we are finally moving on from saying the problem does not exist.

In answer to your first two questions,

Exactly How Much Has the Earth Warmed? And Does It Matter?

There is ongoing debate about exactly how much the Earth has warmed since the Industrial Revolution, partly due to uncertainties in both historical and recent global temperatures. That’s unlikely to change anyone’s mind about the urgency of reducing fossil fuel usage and emissions.

www.forbes.com

And in answer to your “biggest question,

Ten simple ways to act on climate change

We know that climate change is happening – but there are plenty of things individuals can do to help mitigate it. Here’s your handy guide to the most effective strategies.

www.bbc.com

Humanity has a problem, just not a CO2 problem!
We have a very real energy problem, Our population cannot be sustained without the energy we currently get from oil.
The alternatives, are currently incapable of filling all of the energy roles needed to replace oil based fuels.
We can generate enough energy with Nuclear, solar and wind, but that energy is not in a form that can be used when and where
we need it.

 

[code1211]

As Biden prepares for climate summit, U.N. says the world is 'on the verge of the abyss'
"A key goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change is to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the U.N. report warns that doing so will require a massive effort from the governments of the world.

“The data in this report show that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times, meaning that time is fast running out to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a foreword to the report. “We need to do more, and faster, now.”"
I look at articles like this, and think, well GISS is 1.05C above the pre-1900 average, but about .3C of that is thought to be natural.
It almost sound like the doing "something" is favored over doing something that might actually address the real issue.
Modern human society requires energy, and until they address that, emission cuts are sort of a joke.

When was "pre-industrial?

How much cooler was "pre-industrial" as compared to the year 1200? As compared to the period between 8000 and 5000 years ago?

IF "pre-industrial" was a degree cooler than "normal" for the Holocene, THEN the current temperatures are NOT a thing that should call for correction, but rather a thing that should cause celebration as a return to "normal".

Figure 5 on page 15 in this link accumulates data from various previous listed graphs and seems to show that the current temperatures for the globe are NOT remarkably warm in the context of the Holocene.

As with so many of the "must act now" agenda items from the Leftists in our world and society, this seems to be yet another propaganda based diversion to lead us away from sensibility to insanity.

https://research.franklin.uga.edu/environmentalchangelaboratory/sites/research.franklin.uga.edu.environmentalchangelaboratory/files/Kaufman%20et%20al.%20(2020)%20Scientific%20Data.pdf

 

[noonereal]

As Biden prepares for climate summit, U.N. says the world is 'on the verge of the abyss'
"A key goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change is to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the U.N. report warns that doing so will require a massive effort from the governments of the world.

“The data in this report show that the global mean temperature for 2020 was around 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times, meaning that time is fast running out to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a foreword to the report. “We need to do more, and faster, now.”"
I look at articles like this, and think, well GISS is 1.05C above the pre-1900 average, but about .3C of that is thought to be natural.
It almost sound like the doing "something" is favored over doing something that might actually address the real issue.
Modern human society requires energy, and until they address that, emission cuts are sort of a joke.

No one cares.

 

[Subieguy]

When was "pre-industrial?

How much cooler was "pre-industrial" as compared to the year 1200? As compared to the period between 8000 and 5000 years ago?

IF "pre-industrial" was a degree cooler than "normal" for the Holocene, THEN the current temperatures are NOT a thing that should call for correction, but rather a thing that should cause celebration as a return to "normal".

Figure 5 on page 15 in this link accumulates data from various previous listed graphs and seems to show that the current temperatures for the globe are NOT remarkably warm in the context of the Holocene.

As with so many of the "must act now" agenda items from the Leftists in our world and society, this seems to be yet another propaganda based diversion to lead us away from sensibility to insanity.

https://research.franklin.uga.edu/environmentalchangelaboratory/sites/research.franklin.uga.edu.environmentalchangelaboratory/files/Kaufman%20et%20al.%20(2020)%20Scientific%20Data.pdf

Insanity is what will happen if we don't start seriously cutting carbon and or removing it soon!

 

[ataraxia]

Humanity has a problem, just not a CO2 problem!
We have a very real energy problem, Our population cannot be sustained without the energy we currently get from oil.
The alternatives, are currently incapable of filling all of the energy roles needed to replace oil based fuels.
We can generate enough energy with Nuclear, solar and wind, but that energy is not in a form that can be used when and where
we need it.

That’s why we have science and technology. I am sure you have heard of those things.

 

[longview]

That’s why we have science and technology.

I agree, but the question is how we effectively deploy that science and technology,
and the first step is in properly identifying the problem!

 

[noonereal]

As with so many of the "must act now" agenda items from the Leftists in our world and society, this seems to be yet another propaganda based diversion to lead us away from sensibility to insanity.

why is it that you stray from the rhetoric from the far right?
On any issue.

I could never be like that. I need to remain my own person and think independent of tribe.

Isn't it interesting just how deep tribe loyalty goes? I find it fascinating.

 

[ataraxia]

I agree, but the question is how we effectively deploy that science and technology,
and the first step is in properly identifying the problem!

Sure. Science has done that too, your personal layman’s opinions and misunderstandings of it notwithstanding.

 

[Antiwar]

I agree, but the question is how we effectively deploy that science and technology,
and the first step is in properly identifying the problem!

Is the problem that you're invested in a particular solution?

 

[NatMorton]

 

[longview]

Sure. Science has done that too, your personal layman’s opinions and misunderstandings of it notwithstanding.

The reason that CO2 is not the issue is that we could not produce the amounts necessary to continue warming for very long,
and we certainly cannot produce enough to increase emissions to keep up with a doubling curve.

 

[ataraxia]

The reason that CO2 is not the issue is that we could not produce the amounts necessary to continue warming for very long,
and we certainly cannot produce enough to increase emissions to keep up with a doubling curve.

Says who?

 

[ataraxia]

View attachment 67329511

Yes, and Covid is no worse than the common cold and will be gone by April 2020 like magic, right?

 

[longview]

Is the problem that you're invested in a particular solution?

Not at all we require energy storage on a massive scale, to fill in the low density poor duty cycle,
of wind and solar power, This actually fits well into using that storage to fulfill transportation fuel requirements.
I think man made hydrocarbon fuels, fit the roll well, because the demand and infrastructure are already in place.
other high density storage options like Ammonia, and hydrogen paste, would require altering the demand and infrastructure.

 

[Antiwar]

Not at all we require energy storage on a massive scale, to fill in the low density poor duty cycle,
of wind and solar power, This actually fits well into using that storage to fulfill transportation fuel requirements.
I think man made hydrocarbon fuels, fit the roll well, because the demand and infrastructure are already in place.
other high density storage options like Ammonia, and hydrogen paste, would require altering the demand and infrastructure.

The main problem that you have identified seems to be that you don't want to reduce energy usage. If that's the case, you haven't identified the problem.

 

[longview]

Says who?

Anyone who cares to look at the numbers!
RCP8.5 is all but impossible, it calls for a CO2 level of 1370 ppm by year 2100,
some 955 ppm above the current level. This would require an average annual increase of
12 ppm per year. The last 20 years have been averaging between 2 and 3 ppm per year.
We do not have the refinery capacity, or the supply of oil, to reach 12 ppm per year.
Coal perhaps, but not many places are building new coal plants.

 

[longview]

The main problem that you have identified seems to be that you don't want to reduce energy usage. If that's the case, you haven't identified the problem.

We can all reduce our energy usage, but that has limits, and those limits would become very real if everyone alive wanted to
live a modern lifestyle. It would be unacceptable for humanity to step back to a 17th century lifestyle .
The path forward, is to find a sustainable way in which everyone alive could have a sustainable modern lifestyle, if they choose it.
Short of a major technology breakthrough, this limits our options.

 

[Antiwar]

We can all reduce our energy usage, but that has limits, and those limits would become very real if everyone alive wanted to
live a modern lifestyle. It would be unacceptable for humanity to step back to a 17th century lifestyle .
The path forward, is to find a sustainable way in which everyone alive could have a sustainable modern lifestyle, if they choose it.
Short of a major technology breakthrough, this limits our options.

Have you identified the problem?