Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

Smores said:
We were supposed to have reached peak emissions by 2020 to stand a solid chance of eventually limiting the impacts. 42 days to go! Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

Aren't we crushing the CO2 emission goals set by the Paris agreement globally? Given that the overall goal was not to exceed the 2 degrees C average temperature increase that could start of some bad systems leading to a potential "hot earth" scenario... And by crushing the goals, I mean exceeding the emission limit in a spectacular way...
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Aren't we crushing the CO2 emission goals set by the Paris agreement globally? Given that the overall goal was not to exceed the 2 degrees C average temperature increase that could start of some bad systems leading to a potential "hot earth" scenario... And by crushing the goals, I mean exceeding the emission limit in a spectacular way...
Click to expand...

It's definitely possible that we're well on our way to a greenhouse Earth, meaning not an ice age (which we are in right now), but our current climate science suggests that the mechanisms simply don't exist that would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, something akin to Venus. Or rather they might exist, but it's not something we're capable of affecting.
 
nimic said:
It's definitely possible that we're well on our way to a greenhouse Earth, meaning not an ice age (which we are in right now), but our current climate science suggests that the mechanisms simply don't exist that would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, something akin to Venus. Or rather they might exist, but it's not something we're capable of affecting.
Click to expand...

The "hothouse earth" was a term they used to get more publicity for their paper, which is based on current climate change literature, systems and models. Given that their idea or theory that we could get a situation where self-enforcing effects like C4 from permafrost would cause increased temperature and thus even more methane from the melting permafrost is realistic. The good thing that there is a limit to the amount of methane from the permafrost and that it will "leave" the atmosphere within 10years+-. So it depends on how one defines runaway in this scenario.

Will it be a complete runaway effect leaving the earth as a barren wasteland? No, there is a limit as you stated. Will it be a driver for increased global temperature? Likely. What will the impact be comparable to the direct human-related emission? No models made yet given the short time since the idea was put forward, but it might.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
The "hothouse earth" was a term they used to get more publicity for their paper, which is based on current climate change literature, systems and models. Given that their idea or theory that we could get a situation where self-enforcing effects like C4 from permafrost would cause increased temperature and thus even more methane from the melting permafrost is realistic. The good thing that there is a limit to the amount of methane from the permafrost and that it will "leave" the atmosphere within 10years+-. So it depends on how one defines runaway in this scenario.

Will it be a complete runaway effect leaving the earth as a barren wasteland? No, there is a limit as you stated. Will it be a driver for increased global temperature? Likely. What will the impact be comparable to the direct human-related emission? No models made yet given the short time since the idea was put forward, but it might.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I'm with you. The methane thing in particular is quite worrying.
 
Wait, so let me get this straight?

This Mark guy, has founded his opinion on climate science, based on his own lack of education and ignorance, displayed by his inability to actually read the graphs he has cited in the past, and whenever he is beaten about the face with this documented fact, he evades and talks about how many atoms are in the universe, while pontificating the meaning of science, while his head is up his own arse?

Brilliant.
 
nimic said:
Unfortunately he didn't found it completely on his own. He's very much part of the climate denier twitter scene, which is why he's so absurdly confident when he comes here.
Click to expand...

I actually think at this stage the deniers provide really useful publicity for the climate change threat. The clear crackpot conspiracies they try to sell have just made climate science more accepted, outside of a very narrow demographic at least.
 
There is a very worrying article on the BBC Science website stating that CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have continued to rise at alarming rates over the last year. This despite the Paris Climate Change agreed actions.
CO2 for example has increased at an accelerated level.
The concentration levels are quite a way above the level associated with a +2C temperature increase.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
 
Buster15 said:
There is a very worrying article on the BBC Science website stating that CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have continued to rise at alarming rates over the last year. This despite the Paris Climate Change agreed actions.
Click to expand...
Yeah I posted this from the UN in September.
Maagge said:
Just in case you think we're doing enough.
Click to expand...
Buster15 said:
CO2 for example has increased at an accelerated level.
The concentration levels are quite a way above the level associated with a +2C temperature increase.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Click to expand...
I think you've misunderstood that.
The CO2 concentrations aren't above the +2 degrees C mark. Because then we'd already observe those temperatures. The projections, however, are that we're not doing enough to end up below that amount of heating unless we change our ways.
 
Maagge said:
The CO2 concentrations aren't above the +2 degrees C mark. Because then we'd already observe those temperatures. The projections, however, are that we're not doing enough to end up below that amount of heating unless we change our ways.
Click to expand...

There is some delay, and there will take some time for the ramifications of the amount C02 we currently have in our atmosphere can be translated into temperature. The global climate system is not responsive enough to see immediate reacting to change, so in theory, we could have already reached a CO2 limit/threshold needed for a 2 degrees increase in temp.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
There is some delay, and there will take some time for the ramifications of the amount C02 we currently have in our atmosphere can be translated into temperature. The global climate system is not responsive enough to see immediate reacting to change, so in theory, we could have already reached a CO2 limit/threshold needed for a 2 degrees increase in temp.
Click to expand...
I get your point but the +2 degrees Celsius projections are looking at the year 2100. I don't think the delay is that long.
 
Maagge said:
I get your point but the +2 degrees Celsius projections are looking at the year 2100. I don't think the delay is that long.
Click to expand...

No, its not. But we will reach +2 degrees before 2100, dependent on how this is measured/presented.

We are already over the limit for the "system" to be stable --> Input(CO2-e) are not completely absorbed by the system (too much CO2 for the carbon sinks). So even if we continued with the same output we would still reach 2 degrees regardless, since we are producing more CO2-e than what is broken down. The problem is that we are increasing our C02 output, meaning that the inbalance will increase and the d(avg.Temp)/dt will increase.
 
Maagge said:
Yeah I posted this from the UN in September.


I think you've misunderstood that.
The CO2 concentrations aren't above the +2 degrees C mark. Because then we'd already observe those temperatures. The projections, however, are that we're not doing enough to end up below that amount of heating unless we change our ways.
Click to expand...

Understood. But as I am sure you appreciate climate change is not an instantaneous system like a light switch.
A percentage of the greenhouse gas is absorbed by the oceans and ground.
Anyway. The real worry is that the increases are still increasing. And with all the devastating forest fires, 2019 could be even worse.
 
"Postponing action could no longer be an option, said Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP. “Our collective failure to act early and hard on climate change means we must now deliver deep cuts to emissions [of] over 7% each year, if we break it down evenly over the next decade. This shows that countries simply cannot wait.”
Without such urgent action the world’s fate would be sealed within the next few years as carbon would rise to such a level as to make dangerous levels of warming inevitable, she said. “We need quick wins to reduce emissions as much as possible in 2020, then stronger [commitments under the Paris agreement] to kickstart the major transformations of economies and societies. We need to catch up on the years in which we procrastinated.”

I'm still seeing bugger all action apart from the easy policy promises of "yeah we'll just plant more trees". Now more and more corporations are following the same line as an offset as if that solves everything.
 
Smores said:
"Postponing action could no longer be an option, said Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP. “Our collective failure to act early and hard on climate change means we must now deliver deep cuts to emissions [of] over 7% each year, if we break it down evenly over the next decade. This shows that countries simply cannot wait.”
Without such urgent action the world’s fate would be sealed within the next few years as carbon would rise to such a level as to make dangerous levels of warming inevitable, she said. “We need quick wins to reduce emissions as much as possible in 2020, then stronger [commitments under the Paris agreement] to kickstart the major transformations of economies and societies. We need to catch up on the years in which we procrastinated.”

I'm still seeing bugger all action apart from the easy policy promises of "yeah we'll just plant more trees". Now more and more corporations are following the same line as an offset as if that solves everything.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you frustration and a sense of anger which I share.
The vast majority of people I know just carry on as normal believing it is someone else problem to fix. Even those with children and grandchildren. Their main focus is Christmas and how to outdo last year and have a 'perfect Christmas'. And yet the extreme dangers are staring humanity in the face.
I find it so incredibly stupid that not only is little being done but we are making it significantly worse.
Come on people. Wake up and open your eyes.....for the sake of your family and children.
 
Very interesting Leaders Debate on Chanel 4 this evening. Reason for saying interesting because party leaders Boris Johnson and Nigella Farage were not in attendance. Far too busy trying to convince us that 'get Brexit done' is the most important subject. Which it most certainly is not.
Brexit is not an emergency.
Climate change absolutely is the number one problem.
And how can those two not be capable of participating in such a vital discussion.
Why doesn't Boris have a three word slogan for climate change, like he has for everything else.
Simple. He does not care about it, just like his American mate.
 
Buster15 said:
Very interesting Leaders Debate on Chanel 4 this evening. Reason for saying interesting because party leaders Boris Johnson and Nigella Farage were not in attendance. Far too busy trying to convince us that 'get Brexit done' is the most important subject. Which it most certainly is not.
Brexit is not an emergency.
Climate change absolutely is the number one problem.
And how can those two not be capable of participating in such a vital discussion.
Why doesn't Boris have a three word slogan for climate change, like he has for everything else.
Simple. He does not care about it, just like his American mate.
Click to expand...
They not only don't care they know their audience also doesn't care.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
They not only don't care they know their audience also doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that.
Younger voters or even younger non voters are not as stupid as to not care about this subject.
And they will be or become aware that the leader of the Conservatives did not attend.
And voters of all ages are beginning to understand the importance of this issue.
I thought the most impressive leader was the lady of the Green Party.
She spoke as if she takes this subject personally which we all have to at some point.
 
Buster15 said:
Not so sure about that.
Younger voters or even younger non voters are not as stupid as to not care about this subject.
And they will be or become aware that the leader of the Conservatives did not attend.
And voters of all ages are beginning to understand the importance of this issue.
I thought the most impressive leader was the lady of the Green Party.
She spoke as if she takes this subject personally which we all have to at some point.
Click to expand...
Not many Tory or Brexit party voters would care.
I agree younger voters care. They tend not to vote Tory or Brexit and they are our, albeit slim, hope. Sian Berry was good, yes. Her party already has my vote.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Not many Tory or Brexit party voters would care.
I agree younger voters care. They tend not to vote Tory or Brexit and they are our, albeit slim, hope. Sian Berry was good, yes. Her party already has my vote.
Click to expand...
For many of them its not just that they don't care, they genuinely see the whole thing as one elaborate globalist hoax.

Depressingly its probably made them think more highly of them.
 
i say we just cull everyone 60 years old and over. better for politics and the planet. it will be for the greater good.
 
stepic said:
i say we just cull everyone 60 years old and over. better for politics and the planet. it will be for the greater good.
Click to expand...

The most effective way by far would be to "remove" 75% of the population on earth. Would give us a 93,65% chance of getting rid of either the big orange guy in the states or the one in London.
 
Greta is now in Portugal so it was news over here. I was really amazed by the amount of abuse she got on social media and even from some tv commentators. I really can't wrap my head around this. And the word "greta" in portuguese is kinda a slang word for "vagina", it was really disgusting the amount of crude jokes about a minor. We are truly fecked as a species.
 
maniak said:
Greta is now in Portugal so it was news over here. I was really amazed by the amount of abuse she got on social media and even from some tv commentators. I really can't wrap my head around this. And the word "greta" in portuguese is kinda a slang word for "vagina", it was really disgusting the amount of crude jokes about a minor. We are truly fecked as a species.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've started looking very differently at any grown up I meet who lays into her. It's pathetic. My only explanation is they know deep down that she's right and it's some form of deflection.
 
I just wonder what people opinions are on how f*cked we are and when we will start to feel the f*cking? E.g. Societal colapse, mass migration, mass death etc within x amount of years or "technology will fix it" etc.
 
Abizzz said:
Yeah I've started looking very differently at any grown up I meet who lays into her. It's pathetic. My only explanation is they know deep down that she's right and it's some form of deflection.
Click to expand...

That is right. It would be brilliant if man made climate change was proven to be completely wrong.
But it is reality and we can see the early effects with our own eyes.
Those individuals who seek to shut her up or try to discredit her are getting ever more desperate and deluded.
But let them pedal their outdated poison. Because the rest of us understand what is happening and the reasons why.
Far more important is to try to do the right things.
 
Abizzz said:
Yeah I've started looking very differently at any grown up I meet who lays into her. It's pathetic. My only explanation is they know deep down that she's right and it's some form of deflection.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand it. It’s fine to disagree with her, and you can easily comprehend why someone who has believed something all their lives is confronted with a different reality doesn’t like what she says - but just ignore her then. Why the hate? She’s a bloody child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.