"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Water John

Just putting a link here that shows those climate deniers that your fossil fuel friends were well aware of the effects in the 1980s.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

This has remarkable similarity to the tabacco companies.

Akrasia

The IPCC released a special report on Monday outlining the consequences should we allow warming to increase beyond 1.5c and they're not good at all.

Based on current emissions pathways we are on track to breach 3c warming by 2100 and reach 1.5c by 2040

This is a report that has been in progress for 2.5 years involving dozens of the foremost experts in the fields most relevant to climate change

They start by saying that Human activities are likely to have cause 1c of warming above pre-industrial levels and that global warming is 'likely' to reach 1.5c by between 2030 and 2052 if emissions continue to increase at their current rate.

There is substantial difference in impacts to human welfare and biodiversity when comparing a world 2c and 1.5c above pre-industrial

The solution to this problem is outlined in chapter 2. Basically, we need to get to zero net emissions by about 2050 with various scenarios overshooting the 1.5c before reducing back to this level with large scale BECCS programs to reduce atmospheric CO2 content. The longer it takes for us to cut our carbon emissions, the greater the risk that we will overshoot the 1.5c target and have to spend an awful lot more money and resources in removing carbon from the atmosphere to control climate change.

By mid-century, the majority of primary energy comes from non-fossil-fuels (i.e., renewables and nuclear energy) in most 1.5°C pathways (Table 2.6). Figure 2.15 shows the evolution of primary energy supply over this century across 1.5°C pathways, and in detail for the four illustrative pathway archetypes highlighted in this chapter. Note that this section reports primary energy using the direct equivalent method on a lower heating values basis (Bruckner et al., 2014).

Renewable energy (including biomass, hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal) increases across all 1.5°C pathways with the renewable energy share of primary energy reaching 28–88% in 2050 (Table 2.6) with an interquartile range of 49–67%. The magnitude and split between bioenergy, wind, solar, and hydro differ between pathways, as can be seen in the illustrative pathway archetypes in Figure 2.15. Bioenergy is a major supplier of primary energy, contributing to both electricity and other forms of final energy such as liquid fuels for transportation (Bauer et al., 2018). In 1.5°C pathways, there is a significant growth in bioenergy used in combination with CCS for pathways where it is included (Figure 2.15).

Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power from nuclear generators declines (Table 2.15). There are large differences in nuclear power between models and across pathways (Kim et al., 2014; Rogelj et al., 2018). One of the reasons for this variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b). Some 1.5°C pathways no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project over 200 EJ yr–1 of nuclear power in 2100 (Figure 2.15).

The share of primary energy provided by total fossil fuels decreases from 2020 to 2050 in all 1.5°C pathways, however, trends for oil, gas and coal differ (Table 2.6). By 2050, the share of primary energy from coal decreases to 0–13% across 1.5°C pathways with an interquartile range of 1–7%. From 2020 to 2050 the primary energy supplied by oil changes by –93 to +6% (interquartile range –75 to –32%); natural gas changes by –88 to +99% (interquartile range –60 to –13%), with varying levels of CCS. Pathways with higher use of coal and gas tend to deploy CCS to control their carbon emissions (see Section 2.4.2.3). As the energy transition is accelerated by several decades in 1.5°C pathways compared to 2°C pathways, residual fossil-fuel use (i.e., fossil fuels not used for electricity generation) without CCS is generally lower in 2050 than in 2°C pathways, while combined hydro, solar, and wind power deployment is generally higher than in 2°C pathways (Figure 2.15).

In addition to the 1.5°C pathways included in the scenario database (Annex 2.A.3), there are other analyses in the literature including, for example, sector-based analyses of energy demand and supply options. Even though not necessarily developed in the context of the 1.5°C target, they explore in greater detail some options for deep reductions in GHG emissions. For example, there are analyses of transition to up to 100% renewable energy by 2050 (Creutzig et al., 2017; Jacobson et al., 2017), which describe what is entailed for a renewable energy share largely from solar and wind (and electrification) that is above the range of 1.5°C pathways available in the database, although there have been challenges to the assumptions used in high renewable analyses (e.g., Clack et al., 2017). There are also analyses that result in a large role for nuclear energy in mitigation of GHGs (Hong et al., 2015; Berger et al., 2017a, 2017b; Xiao and Jiang, 2017).

BECCS could also contribute a larger share, but faces challenges related to its land use and impact on food supply (Burns and Nicholson, 2017) (assessed in greater detail in Sections 2.3.4.2, 4.3.7 and 5.4). These analyses could, provided their assumptions prove plausible, expand the range of 1.5°C pathways.

In summary, the share of primary energy from renewables increases while that from coal decreases across 1.5°C pathways (high confidence). This statement is true for all 1.5°C pathways in the scenario database and associated literature (Annex 2.A.3), and is consistent with the additional studies mentioned above, an increase in energy supply from lower-carbon-intensity energy supply, and a decrease in energy supply from higher-carbon-intensity energy supply

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

And even though this report is scathing and urgent, it still does not fully take into account some of the 'known unknowns' and the risks that we could slip into a positive feedbacks that could cause runaway climate change beyond our ability to mitigate them.

As it stands, humans are the architects of the future global climate. We can change our energy systems. It will be expensive and disruptive, and challenging, but it is an economic and political problem, not a scientific or technical one. But if we pass a tipping point where the earth drives warming on it's own, then we become passengers on a train ride to hell.

The ball is firmly in the court of our politicians and global political institutions to transform our energy systems, building standards, transport infrastructures etc, and to change land use and promote afforestation and carbon capture by industry. As individuals, we can reduce our own personal consumption, but the most important action we can take is political action. We need to put pressure on our politicians and governments at every level to prioritise climate change and energy policy. We have only got a few years to make unprecedented changes to avoid runaway climate change and the severe impacts that this will have on future generations and non human species.

The most dangerous ideology this planet has ever seen is not Nazis, or communists, or feminists. it's Science denialism. Pseudo 'skeptics' and corporate shills who are happily promoting lies and distorting the facts so that they can continue to pollute the planet despite the overwhelming evidence that they are causing long term irreversible harm.

The Rape of Lucretia

I have not seen that Danny Healy Rae was involved or consulted in the writing of that report, so it cannot make much claim to being independent or authoritative.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

The most dangerous ideology this planet has ever seen is not Nazis, or communists, or feminists. it's Science denialism. Pseudo 'skeptics' and corporate shills who are happily promoting lies and distorting the facts so that they can continue to pollute the planet despite the overwhelming evidence that they are causing long term irreversible harm.

Best get out on the streets and start calling into houses and get any sceptics rounded up and executed then so everyone left will be in agreement with you about the need to implement the UN socialist policies.



You're going to have to resort to some undemocratic measures because the government doesn't care and neither does the public.


Did the IPCC this time define what the preindustrial global temperature was and what period it refers to when it mentions preindustrial?


Last time round it didn't and neither does the Paris agreement that this report is pushing for the urgent implementation of.


That agreement was one you described as vague and meaningless.



Mary Robinson was on with Sean O Rourke yesterday giving it her all about climate justice.


Coinciding nicely with the launch her new book and thoughts about going vegan.

xckjoo

Is it just me or is there a lot more extreme winds and storms in the last few years? It seems to have coincided with me starting back cycling to work

Niles Crane

Individual action is a waste of time.Unless people are foced into changing by the world changing the way it operates then people won't do anything to change the way they behave.

If the politicians do nothing (and I supect they won't as most won't be around to feel the full affect of climate change) then nothing will be done.

I suspect there will be some seriously dark days ahead for humanity and we won't cop on and react appropriately until it's far too late.

joe40

A bit like a smoker saying he will stop when there is a tumour.

When the full affects of climate change are realised it will be too late to do anything to prevent it, just work to mitigate against the affects.

Maybe we are already at that stage

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Best get out on the streets and start calling into houses and get any sceptics rounded up and executed then so everyone left will be in agreement with you about the need to implement the UN socialist policies.

You're going to have to resort to some undemocratic measures because the government doesn't care and neither does the public.

Hold on, i thought it was a government conspiracy to buy off scientists to fake climate change something something one world government.

Some of the public mightn't care as you say, but they didn't care about seatbelts either and had to be forced to wear them by laws, they didn't care about drink driving, and had to be forced by law stop drinking and driving. They didn't care about air quality and had to be forced by law to stop burning their rubbish in their back garden... But despite the public apathy, governments driven by the public interest implemented regulations and laws to clean the air and save people from their own short sighted stupidity by dramatically decreasing road deaths and forcing car manufacturers to improve the safety of their vehicles.

Governments are there to govern. To build the infrastructure, to create the laws, the regulations, the mechanisms for the security and prosperity of the state and it's citizens, and to protect the broader security of the global population.

Did the IPCC this time define what the preindustrial global temperature was and what period it refers to when it mentions preindustrial?

Yes. It's the average temperature between 1850 and 1900

Pre-industrial: The multi-century period prior to the onset of large-scale industrial activity around
1750. The reference period 1850–1900 is used to approximate pre-industrial GMST.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Is it just me or is there a lot more extreme winds and storms in the last few years? It seems to have coincided with me starting back cycling to work

Its so hard to know isn't it?

Studies based on proxy and measurement data or model studies over the North Atlantic for the past which cover more than 100 years show large decadal variations and either no trend or a decrease in storm numbers.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qj.2364


If a trend was to be identified, identifying a cause presents its own problems.

Akrasia

Niles Crane wrote: »

Individual action is a waste of time.Unless people are foced into changing by the world changing the way it operates then people won't do anything to change the way they behave.

If the politicians do nothing (and I supect they won't as most won't be around to feel the full affect of climate change) then nothing will be done.

I suspect there will be some seriously dark days ahead for humanity and we won't cop on and react appropriately until it's far too late.

Yeah, we need collective action, but there are ways of encouraging pro-social behaviour in way that is not coercive and still allows individuals plenty of autonomy in how they operate.

For example, if we need to get to a carbon tax of at least 100 euros a tonne. Ireland has a per capita emissions of 7.3 tonnes of CO2 per year. So the government could give a environmental efficiency grant of 730 euros per person and then apply the full carbon tax to fuel, heating, transport etc.

This means even if a family made zero changes they wouldn't be any worse off. But every time they fill up their heating, or petrol for their car, they'll notice the cost and know that if they spent the money from their grant to replace their boiler or install solar panels, or change their car, or even walk and take public transport more they would be better off.

People who are the most polluting would pay a lot more in tax, people who are concientious could actually make a profit from changing their lifestyle.

There would be a pent up demand for low emissions power generation, nobody would want to pay for electricity that came with a 15% surcharge carbon tax if there was an 'airtricity' style provider that got all electric power from renewable sources

xckjoo

Niles Crane wrote: »

Individual action is a waste of time.Unless people are foced into changing by the world changing the way it operates then people won't do anything to change the way they behave.

If the politicians do nothing (and I supect they won't as most won't be around to feel the full affect of climate change) then nothing will be done.

I suspect there will be some seriously dark days ahead for humanity and we won't cop on and react appropriately until it's far too late.

An answer to the "why should individuals bother" question just occurred to me. If people care politicians will care. If politicians care, governments will care and so on. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?



Obviously it isn't a clear cut in the real world, but it does work to some degree. There's a reason politicians listen to the elderly and it's not kindness; it's because they show up to vote.

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

An answer to the "why should individuals bother" question just occurred to me. If people care politicians will care. If politicians care, governments will care and so on. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?



Obviously it isn't a clear cut in the real world, but it does work to some degree. There's a reason politicians listen to the elderly and it's not kindness; it's because they show up to vote.

People need to care at the ballot box and in correspondence to their TDs and local councillors and MEPs, and in letters to the editor in media, and in social media, and in calls to radio stations, and in protests and demonstrations. Every time Danny Healey Rae says something stupid about climate change, he needs to get hundreds of letters and emails from his constituents telling him that they won't vote for his science denialism at the next election.

Politicians need to think that if they support measures to update the energy infrastructure and reduce emissions, that they will get support from the public and not just a backlash that makes it more trouble than its worth to them.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes. It's the average temperature between 1850 and 1900

Which is obviously not the pre industrial period.


An accurate average global temperature for the pre industrial temperature cannot be established due to a lack of observations.



And as you often say yourself, historical data has to be approached with scepticism.


The lefty political scientists who are on the United Nation's climate panel don't really mind so long as they can drum up a bit of hysteria amongst the easily led.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

People need to care at the ballot box and in correspondence to their TDs and local councillors and MEPs, and in letters to the editor in media, and in social media, and in calls to radio stations, and in protests and demonstrations. Every time Danny Healey Rae says something stupid about climate change, he needs to get hundreds of letters and emails from his constituents telling him that they won't vote for his science denialism at the next election.

Politicians need to think that if they support measures to update the energy infrastructure and reduce emissions, that they will get support from the public and not just a backlash that makes it more trouble than its worth to them.

Every time some green numpty demands that we radidly transition off of fossil fuels, demand that they explain exactly what they think is going to replace the 95% of our energy requirements that fossil fuels supply.

Then tell them to stand for office.

The greenies are already crying that another budget based on economic growth that "ignores climate change" has been presented.



https://www.greenparty.ie/fine-gael-ignore-climate-change-in-a-pre-election-budget-which-has-no-long-term-vision-for-our-future/

“As Professor John Fitzgerald of the Climate Advisory Committee has said: “We are completely off course and heading rapidly in the wrong direction“. This budget was a chance to set us on the right course but the Taoiseach and Minister Donohoe have given up on that opportunity.

dense

Niles Crane wrote: »

Individual action is a waste of time.

It's not your carbon footprint thats the problem, it's everyone elses.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Which is obviously not the pre industrial period.


An accurate average global temperature for the pre industrial temperature cannot be established due to a lack of observations.



And as you often say yourself, historical data has to be approached with scepticism.


The lefty political scientists who are on the United Nation's climate panel don't really mind so long as they can drum up a bit of hysteria amongst the easily led.

We have a good enough understanding for the purposes of using this as a reference point.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Every time some green numpty demands that we radidly transition off of fossil fuels, demand that they explain exactly what they think is going to replace the 95% of our energy requirements that fossil fuels supply.

Then tell them to stand for office.

The greenies are already crying that another budget based on economic growth that "ignores climate change" has been presented.



https://www.greenparty.ie/fine-gael-ignore-climate-change-in-a-pre-election-budget-which-has-no-long-term-vision-for-our-future/

And every time some know nothing science denier tells you that there are no credible proposals to rapidly decarbonise our economy. Simply point out the fact that we already have the technology to make big strides into replacing fossil fuels, we just need to make the capital investments. And we have known for more than a decade that the costs of adaptation and mitigation to climate change are many times higher than the costs of infrastructure developments to reduce the worse impacts of climate change.

Digging up dinosaurs and burning them has outlived it's usefulness. It's now causing much more harm than good, so we need to produce sustainable energy if we hope to have any kind of a decent planet to live on in future.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

It's not your carbon footprint thats the problem, it's everyone elses.

Thats true. If you were the only one producing CO2, there wouldn't be a problem. It's because there are billions of us producing these emissions (some more wastefully than others) that we have a problem.

Individual action can not be the solution to this problem. It requires global collective action.

Some people are too thick headed to see this, they are triggered by the idea of imaginary reds under their bed

Niles Crane

dense wrote: »

It's not your carbon footprint thats the problem, it's everyone elses.

You fail to understand the point I was making.

If during the second world war when they had brought in rationing in the UK in order to help the war effort but essentially it was up to you whether you consumed less meat,sugar, fruit ,electricity and all the other stuff that was restricted and there was no regulations over what you did and no enforcement of anything do you think

A) people would have done the right thing and consumed less or

people would have carried on as they were because they saw their neighbours weren't making the effort so why the hell should they suffer if no-one else was.


I suspect that option B is what would have happened and it's what happens in all cases when it's left up to individuals by themselves without enforcement to do "the right thing" (whatever that my be).

If governments don't bring in regulations or change the way the world works and accept it has to change and regulations have to be brought in to change it then people will not be making any changes regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

People are inherently selfish always have been and always will be.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats true. If you were the only one producing CO2, there wouldn't be a problem. It's because there are billions of us producing these emissions (some more wastefully than others) that we have a problem.

Individual action can not be the solution to this problem. It requires global collective action.

You're really going to have to reassess your attitude to your personal emissions.

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require unprecedented

, life changing and "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Nowhere is exempt.



It's going to take a collective effort, even from the deniers like you who say their emissions don't make a difference.



Every kilo of co2 you choose to put into the atmosphere is one kilo too much.


Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.

You're clearly not into being personally responsible for your own actions so you're calling for some fuzzy global action plan.

You'll be off the hook for a while so.

Emit as much co2 as you like.

But please stop going on about everyone else's need to reduce theirs.

Niles Crane

dense wrote: »

You're really going to have to reassess your attitude to your personal emissions.

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require unprecedented

, life changing and "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Nowhere is exempt.



It's going to take a collective effort, even from the deniers like you who say their emissions don't make a difference.



Every kilo of co2 you choose to put into the atmosphere is one kilo too much.


Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.

You're clearly not into being personally responsible for your own actions so you're calling for some fuzzy global action plan.

You'll be off the hook for a while so.

Emit as much co2 as you like.

But please stop going on about everyone else's need to reduce theirs.

He used the word "Us " in his post.

Us would include himself I imagine.

Water John

You're attempt to somersault what Akrasia is saying, reaches Trumpian levels.
It's quite clear he/she is saying it requires much more than individual optional action. This doesn't lessen our each individual responsibility.

dense

Niles Crane wrote: »

You fail to understand the point I was making.

If during the second world war when they had brought in rationing in the UK in order to help the war effort but essentially it was up to you whether you consumed less meat,sugar, fruit ,electricity and all the other stuff that was restricted and there was no regulations over what you did and no enforcement of anything do you think

A) people would have done the right thing and consumed less or

people would have carried on as they were because they saw their neighbours weren't making the effort so why the hell should they suffer if no-one else was.


I suspect that option B is what would have happened and it's what happens in all cases when it's left up to individuals by themselves without enforcement to do "the right thing" (whatever that my be).

If governments don't bring in regulations or change the way the world works and accept it has to change and regulations have to be brought in to change it then people will not be making any changes regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

People are inherently selfish always have been and always will be.

Of course, but now we have virtue signalling hypocrisy to contend with as well.


Your rationing analogy is a good one actually.



How would you describe someone calling for the rationing of co2 emissions whilst refusing to ration their own co2 emissions?

Franz Von Peppercorn

dense wrote: »

Of course, but now we have virtue signalling hypocrisy to contend with as well.


Your rationing analogy is a good one actually.



How would you describe someone calling for the rationing of co2 emissions whilst refusing to ration their own co2 emissions?

He isn’t refusing to ration his emissions.

SEPT 23 1989

A terrible thing not to have faith in your children and grandchildren that they cant find a way

cnocbui

Akrasia wrote: »

We have a good enough understanding for the purposes of using this as a reference point.

What percentage of the Earth's annual heat budget can be attributed to the CO2 produced by humans?

Water John

But we are borrowing the finite resources of the earth from those next generations. Our use rates are not sustainable.

Austria!

dense wrote: »

The lefty political scientists who are on the United Nation's climate panel don't really mind so long as they can drum up a bit of hysteria amongst the easily led.

A compelling thesis

Roger_007

I find it reassuring that the IPCC are confident that we humans have the ability to determine what the world's temperature will be in 50 or 100 years time.
We can do this, apparently, by simply controlling the amount of CO2 we put in to the atmosphere.
It's a wonderful thing that after 5 billion years of having a climate which has fluctuated from one extreme to the other, we humans came along and discovered the key to controlling the whole system.
So instead of worrying about our climate changing, we should rejoice in the fact that we can control it to suit our needs. All we have to do is turn that big CO2 knob up or down.

Dohnjoe

Roger_007 wrote: »

It's a wonderful thing that after 5 billion years of having a climate which has fluctuated from one extreme to the other, we humans came along and discovered the key to controlling the whole system.

Pretty much yeah, we also discovered we could put a whopping great hole in the Ozone layer in a relatively short space of time

Thankfully we did something about that