Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Someone's tagline in another thread struck me as apposite to the divide between alarmists and sceptics.

"The trouble with this world is that
the ignorant are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- George Bernard Shaw

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by StuM

Someone's tagline in another thread struck me as apposite to the divide between alarmists and sceptics.

"The trouble with this world is that
the ignorant are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- George Bernard Shaw

And most of the truly stupid....... seem to be on government handouts and benefits.

[Van Der Beek]

Science is like a religion these days, you're not allowed to question it its dogmatic. It is yet another control system where the "scientists" are the high priests.

Now.

I'm not suggesting that what we do to the environment doesn't effect us, of course it does, we do live here so what we do to our home will effect us. However, the climate changes we see – as a result of the sun – are changes that are out of our control.

Lastly.
As pointed out in this thread, this man made climate change (as caused by the sun) all comes down to control, to controlling people, a complete arrest on life itself. But I digress

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Every time you use Google or Apple products you allow Al Gore to profit from you.

Google and Apple, you say. One a massive driver of consumerism and the other a beneficiary of same. Hundreds of millions of phones and other gadgets designed to last only as long as their batteries or fashion style - whichever comes first. Assembled by the hands of exploited sweatshop workers throughout the world (well the third part, at least). Both also infamous for using tax havens and other tax minimisation schemes devised for the sole purpose of squeezing absolutely every drop of profit, regardless of social conscience, from the pockets of the working classes and their governments purely for the benefit of shareholders.

Yep, Al's in it for nothing more than the common good of all mankind and a warm fuzzy feeling. What a guy.

[SailOar]

10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change | CarbonBrief

The Paris Agreement, adopted at the COP21 climate talks in December, sets out a global aim to limit average global surface temperatures to “well below 2C” above pre-industrial levels. It adds that there should be “efforts” to limit it to 1.5C.

But as countries across the world move towards signing and ratifying the agreement, there remains the key question of how these ambitious targets can be met.

A study published last year warned that all the scenarios for keeping global temperature rise to 2C require “negative emissions” – removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it on land, underground or in the oceans.

Although plenty of negative emissions technologies have been proposed, none are ready to be rolled out around the world, or, in some cases, even demonstrated to work at scale.

Kicking off a week-long series on negative emissions technologies (NETs), Carbon Brief takes a look at the many and varied options. Tomorrow, we will publish the views of a wide range of experts who have examined the feasibility of NETs.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’ | CarbonBrief

Carbon Brief reached out to a number of scientists, policy experts and campaigners who have studied both the necessity and feasibility of negative emissions.

We sent them the following identical email:

The Paris Agreement calls for “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels”. However, as the IPCC AR5 report showed, the majority of modelling to date assumes a significant global-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies in the second half of this century, if such temperature limits are to be achieved.

1) What negative emissions technologies offer the most promise – and why?
2) Is it feasible to achieve the scale of deployment required to meet the aims of the Paris Agreement? If so, how? If not, why?

These are the responses we received, first as sample quotes, then, below, in full: [Full response not copied here. See article]

• Ottmar Edenhofer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – “Whether we can achieve the deployment needed for the aims declared in Paris last year…depends very much on which negative emissions options will end up to be at our disposal ultimately.”
• Detlef van Vuuren, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency – “At the moment, BECCS and large-scale reforestation seem to be most promising based on a combination of technology-readiness, costs, and potential. At the same time, both options are not without challenges.”
• David Keith, Harvard University – “I am skeptical that BECCS should be used beyond narrow niches…Instead, I would focus on accelerated weathering and air capture which could, in principle, be scaled to many gigatonnes per year with low land footprint.”
• David MacKay, former chief DECC scientist – “Do I think it is a realistic view of what the world will do? No, not at the moment, because I think the Paris discussions completely ducked this issue, which is one of the most important issues out there.”
• Pete Smith, University of Aberdeen – “For BECCS, there are significant issues with competition for land if it is implemented at the median rate projected by integrated assessment models, and water use is also significant.”
• Oliver Geden, German Institute for International and Security Affairs – “A strategic debate about how to use carbon dioxide removal within a broader portfolio of climate policy measures is clearly lacking.”
• Hannah Mowat, Fern – “If countries reduce emissions fast enough, then the level of CO2 that must be removed is entirely feasible, and, if done through [forest] restoration, can be positive.”
• Rob Bailey, Chatham House – “It is clearly less risky not to emit a tonne of CO2 in the first place, than to emit one in expectation of being able to sequester it for an unknown period of time, at unknown cost, with unknown consequences, at an unknown date and place in the future.”
• Joeri Rogelj, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis – “Without CO2 emissions being penalised or strongly discouraged in some way, a large-scale deployment does never seem realistic.”
• Stephan Singer, WWF – “A debate on the Paris objectives must not start with ‘negative emissions’, since this might be used to delay actions towards later decades.”
• Sabine Fuss, Mercator Research Institute – “There is no champion to be singled out here and we will have to look for the portfolio of negative emissions technologies that minimises unwanted effects on non-climate policy goals.”
• John Lanchbery, RSPB – “A large proportion, if not all of this, could probably be achieved by the conservation and enhancement of natural forests, peatlands and other natural sinks and reservoirs – without recourse to negative emissions technologies.”
• Glen Peters, CICERO – “The best carbon dioxide removal strategy would be to use a mix of technologies, with each technology located to avoid its limitations.”
• Noah Deich, Centre for Carbon Removal – “We must engage the diverse set of stakeholders that will develop and deploy carbon removal systems today to ensure we can meet tomorrow’s climate, economic, and social goals.”
• Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth – “Critically, use of land always brings issues of land rights and justice. It would be a disaster to see poor communities thrown of their land for negative emissions — land grabs are well documented for biofuels.”
• Florian Kraxner, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis – “Biomass co-firing with existing retrofitted or newly built coal power plants seems to be an easy entry for the BECCS technology since it is an expensive technology and economy of scale is key.”
• Sami Yassa, Natural Resources Defense Council – “There is no scientific basis for assuming that BECCS can deliver “negative emissions” after accounting for direct and indirect life-cycle emissions.”
• Tim Lenton, University of Exeter – “We can start on this now, at low cost, and as part of already internationally signed-up-to targets under the Bonn Challenge and subsequent New York Declaration.”

[fryewe]

https://theconversation.com/rapid-tr...l-change-58211

Rubes just don't know what's good for them...

[transmitterdan]

Something is happening. I doubt this weather is caused by El Niño.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/52349772.cms

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Something is happening. I doubt this weather is caused by El Niño.

Rajasthan's Phalodi sizzles at 51°C, highest ever temperature in country - Times of India

I'll say! How the heck did it get so hot in 1956 which was during one of the coolest global periods since 1850, and then go on to hold the record for 60 freakin' years?

Alwar, so long, had the record of registering the maximum temperature ever in the country since 1956 at 50.6 degrees Celsius.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

https://theconversation.com/rapid-tr...l-change-58211

Rubes just don't know what's good for them...

Thanks for that. It shows that changes to energy production are both necessary and feasible.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Lastly.
As pointed out in this thread, this man made climate change (as caused by the sun) all comes down to control, to controlling people, a complete arrest on life itself. But I digress

It ain't the sun. Global Warming -- Research Issues

You digress to conspiracy ideation.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

There, I grabbed #5000.

I don't understand how some of these self righteous guys can justify and/or promote the killing of wildlife with their windmills and giant solar cookers, then on the other hand.... somehow believe they're saving the planet when they pick up a piece of trash or place a can in the correct bin.

If you are worried about birds, start with cats; they kill billions each year,

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, did you know that every time you put gas in your car you allow the oil cos. to profit from you?

Yes, I did know that. And I buy gasoline from companies that recognize the problem and are doing something about.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Do you know what makes up that estimate of 770,000 million metric tons of natural CO2 emissions or not? (I do.)

Around 220,000 million metric tons out of that total is emitted by live plants via respiration.

So if you understand that live plants absorb atmospheric CO2 overall, why did you include that when you calculated our fraction of total emissions? What else did you get wrong? (I know. Do you?)

Once again, your lack of understanding is causing you to focus on your own red herring. The % of human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is published. We know what it is. It AGW were true, then to impact warming we would have to impact that since natural sources are beyond our control. Are you with me so far? The IPCC can tell you how many gigatonnes of CO2 need to be avoided if, according to them, we are to limit the temperature increase by 2100 to less than two degrees. The answer, again according to the IPCC is 3,000 odd gigatonnes.

Now do pay attention, because this is the salient fact....also according to the UN Climate boffins, the amount of CO2 that will be avoided if EVERYONE does exactly what they say they are pledged to do under the Paris Accord is (drum roll) 31 gigatonnes. That impact, and once again according to the IPCC, not the Heartland Institute or some Christian climate scientist, will be a reduction of global temps by .05 degrees by 2100. .05 degrees. And at what cost? Trillions upon trillions.

Now, the trillions will be spent regardless but the signers of the Paris Accords won't be doing what they pledged to do because they either actually don't believe in all the nonsense you do, or feel that they just have to bring more coal plants online to keep green energy policies from putting the lights out all over Europe regardless of what happens to atmospheric CO2. Whatever. The point is that whatever you think about the subject, Central Command for the Scam (CCS) says you have no clue.

Don't shoot me, I am just the messenger.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words, you are in favor of censoring, centralizing, and having govt. have exclusive control over that one too?

Again I ask . . . if you believe the science has such certainty, believe in the validity of the 97% consensus, assert that the contrarians make up a tiny, inconsequential percentage as your cartoon portrays, and that skeptics & deniers are ignorant/conservative/religious/corrupt/duped/etc., then why are you so afraid of a few scientists funded by the oil cos., or a couple more who go to church??? I mean if they are really so out to lunch on the science, then wouldn't letting them speak their loony-tune opinions do nothing but bolster the pro-AGW case? But I suppose if their opinions were really that off-base you'd have a much easier time responding to them. Never mind . . . .

Are you saying that that those solely funded by government are censored and controlled by government?

The disinformation campaigns by the fossil fuel industry are well documented.

I have never said that Christy was out to lunch on his science. His data is quite good. I reject his political / religious conclusions.

BTW - Christy is solely funded by the government. Lindzen got over $3,000,000 in government funding during his career.

I have never said that climate science should only be government funded.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'll say! How the heck did it get so hot in 1956 which was during one of the coolest global periods since 1850, and then go on to hold the record for 60 freakin' years?

Please don't trouble the warmist mind with historic data. History began in 1979. Whatever happened before that doesn't exist.