Global warming cannot be stopped, per UN

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Nations have delayed curbing their fossil-fuel emissions for so long that they can no longer stop global warming from intensifying over the next 30 years, though there is still a short window to prevent the most harrowing future, a major new United Nations scientific report has concluded.

Humans have already heated the planet by roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius, or 2 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 19th century, largely by burning coal, oil and gas for energy. And the consequences can be felt across the globe: This summer alone, blistering heat waves have killed hundreds of people in the United States and Canada, floods have devastated Germany and China, and wildfires have raged out of control in Siberia, Turkey and Greece.

But that’s only the beginning, according to the report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of scientists convened by the United Nations. Even if nations started sharply cutting emissions today, total global warming is likely to rise around 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next two decades, a hotter future that is now essentially locked in.

At 1.5 degrees of warming, scientists have found, the dangers grow considerably. Nearly 1 billion people worldwide could swelter in more frequent life-threatening heat waves. Hundreds of millions more would struggle for water because of severe droughts. Some animal and plant species alive today will be gone. Coral reefs, which sustain fisheries for large swaths of the globe, will suffer more frequent mass die-offs.

“We can expect a significant jump in extreme weather over the next 20 or 30 years,” said Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds and one of hundreds of international experts who helped write the report. “Things are unfortunately likely to get worse than they are today.”

Not all is lost, however, and humanity can still prevent the planet from getting even hotter. Doing so would require a coordinated effort among countries to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by around 2050, which would entail a rapid shift away from fossil fuels starting immediately, as well as potentially removing vast amounts of carbon from the air. If that happened, global warming would likely halt and level off at around 1.5 degrees Celsius, the report concludes.
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Has anyone ever said it could be?  None that I know of.  (if it exists of course)

[wiffleball 4,788]

This is why I open my windows when the ac is on. Cools the outside. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

This will stop it sometime in the next 20 years or so. .

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

Has anyone ever said it could be?  None that I know of.  (if it exists of course)

I love this game

I think there were some folks that, for a while, hoped that we could avoid serious consequences if we reformed our ways in time. So yeah, probably some day in hundreds of thousands of years the planet might warm up anyways, but maybe it wouldn’t happen in the next couple decades instead due to carbon emissions.

But that time has passed, which is what this report says. We sat on our hands and now it can’t be avoided.

But if we act really super fast maybe it’ll only be kinda bad instead of positively horrific.

We won’t though, of course. Partly due to attitudes like yours but if we’re being honest, I suspect it hardly matters. The scope of the problem is too big, and too global, with too many nations and people having to come together to address it.  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

I love this game

I think there were some folks that, for a while, hoped that we could avoid serious consequences if we reformed our ways in time. So yeah, probably some day in hundreds of thousands of years the planet might warm up anyways, but maybe it wouldn’t happen in the next couple decades instead due to carbon emissions.

But that time has passed, which is what this report says. We sat on our hands and now it can’t be avoided.

But if we act really super fast maybe it’ll only be kinda bad instead of positively horrific.

We won’t though, of course. Partly due to attitudes like yours but if we’re being honest, I suspect it hardly matters. The scope of the problem is too big, and too global, with too many nations and people having to come together to address it.  

As opposed to your game.    Give billions to fake green companies on a ruse that perhaps it might do something that NOBODY has claimed can be done.  But it's MY attitude.   

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

The problem is that articles like this combine facts with opinions/guesses. We know that the temperature will rise, but it is impossible to predict what effect that will have on storms, droughts, etc.  We do not know if the net effect will be negative outside of sea level rise and ocean acidity increase and articles that state "facts" about what will occur because of higher temperatures are BS.

For example what happens if/when the Sahara turns green. The Sahara desert is massive that would be tons of farmland gained.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/climate-change-is-making-deserts-greener

 

 

Hundreds of millions more would struggle for water because of severe droughts. Some animal and plant species alive today will be gone. Coral reefs, which sustain fisheries for large swaths of the globe, will suffer more frequent mass die-offs.

“We can expect a significant jump in extreme weather over the next 20 or 30 years,” said Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds and one of hundreds of international experts who helped write the report. “Things are unfortunately likely to get worse than they are today.”

[Strike 5,233]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I love this game

I think there were some folks that, for a while, hoped that we could avoid serious consequences if we reformed our ways in time. So yeah, probably some day in hundreds of thousands of years the planet might warm up anyways, but maybe it wouldn’t happen in the next couple decades instead due to carbon emissions.

But that time has passed, which is what this report says. We sat on our hands and now it can’t be avoided.

But if we act really super fast maybe it’ll only be kinda bad instead of positively horrific.

We won’t though, of course. Partly due to attitudes like yours but if we’re being honest, I suspect it hardly matters. The scope of the problem is too big, and too global, with too many nations and people having to come together to address it.  

You need to be clear on who you're talking about when you say "we."  The U.S. has cut it's emissions significantly over the last couple of decades.  China, India, and other developing nations such as Bangladesh have not.  Unless you can get all those third world countries to do so it's all moot and there's no reason for us to destroy our economy and/or quality of life when it won't do any good.  But hey, John Kerry did his part by flying in to Obama's shindig on a private jet. 

[Cdub100 3,850]

How much money do I need to send?

[IGotWorms 4,057]

7 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

As opposed to your game.    Give billions to fake green companies on a ruse that perhaps it might do something that NOBODY has claimed can be done.  But it's MY attitude.   

It is your attitude and I think trying things versus accepting certain annihilation makes sense. Can’t really be effectively done though with folks like you around constantly throwing wrenches in everything. But like I said, I think we’re doomed anyway

[IGotWorms 4,057]

7 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

The problem is that articles like this combine facts with opinions/guesses. We know that the temperature will rise, but it is impossible to predict what effect that will have on storms, droughts, etc.  We do not know if the net effect will be negative outside of sea level rise and ocean acidity increase and articles that state "facts" about what will occur because of higher temperatures are BS.

For example what happens if/when the Sahara turns green. The Sahara desert is massive that would be tons of farmland gained.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/climate-change-is-making-deserts-greener

 

 

Hundreds of millions more would struggle for water because of severe droughts. Some animal and plant species alive today will be gone. Coral reefs, which sustain fisheries for large swaths of the globe, will suffer more frequent mass die-offs.

“We can expect a significant jump in extreme weather over the next 20 or 30 years,” said Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds and one of hundreds of international experts who helped write the report. “Things are unfortunately likely to get worse than they are today.”

Do you honestly think it’s next effect will be beneficial?

No?

Then what the heck is your point??

[edjr 6,578]

Earth is flat, when should we start jumping?

[IGotWorms 4,057]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

You need to be clear on who you're talking about when you say "we."  The U.S. has cut it's emissions significantly over the last couple of decades.  China, India, and other developing nations such as Bangladesh have not.  Unless you can get all those third world countries to do so it's all moot and there's no reason for us to destroy our economy and/or quality of life when it won't do any good.  But hey, John Kerry did his part by flying in to Obama's shindig on a private jet. 

Yeah did you see the part where I said it was a global problem and we can’t get enough people together on it, dum dum?

”We” haven’t done nearly enough, not even close. Hurting our economy is somewhat irrelevant since the alternative is mass devastation. But I agree, it can’t be done given global challenges anyway. We can’t even get focktards like you in our own country on board, we sure as sh1t aren’t getting China, India etc to join in too

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Do you honestly think it’s next effect will be beneficial?

No?

Then what the heck is your point??

 

It is just as likely that the net effect will be positive as negative, we do not know. Although I think we should do everything within reason to limit future CO2 emissions.

 

For example the Sahara desert is as large as the united states with a population of 2 million people. There are multiple real scientific studies that show that it will turn green as the temperature goes up. Could you imagine having that much habitable farmland and the benefit it would provide the world.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220301007

[TimmySmith 2,782]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It is your attitude and I think trying things versus accepting certain annihilation makes sense. Can’t really be effectively done though with folks like you around constantly throwing wrenches in everything. But like I said, I think we’re doomed anyway

Throwing monkey wrenches?  Because I stated the truth that no climate scientist has stated that GW can be reversed or even arrested.  That our hypocrite leaders know this and yet perpetuate the ruse to line their own pockets.  And I am the problem?  Not Kerry or Gore with their global footprints the size of small countries.  You're looney.

[Utilit99 4,099]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It is your attitude and I think trying things versus accepting certain annihilation makes sense. Can’t really be effectively done though with folks like you around constantly throwing wrenches in everything. But like I said, I think we’re doomed anyway

"Certain annihilation".  You should watch the certain annihilation video of global cooling from 40 years ago that I posted. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, MTSkiBum said:

 

It is just as likely that the net effect will be positive as negative, we do not know. Although I think we should do everything within reason to limit future CO2 emissions.

 

For example the Sahara desert is as large as the united states with a population of 2 million people. There are multiple real scientific studies that show that it will turn green as the temperature goes up. Could you imagine having that much habitable farmland and the benefit it would provide the world.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220301007

You’re off your rocker. Temperature is going to rise by about four degrees CELSIUS in just the next several decades if we don’t pull our act together. There is absolutely no way shape or form that is good. 

[TheNewGirl 1,357]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

You need to be clear on who you're talking about when you say "we."  The U.S. has cut it's emissions significantly over the last couple of decades.  China, India, and other developing nations such as Bangladesh have not.  Unless you can get all those third world countries to do so it's all moot and there's no reason for us to destroy our economy and/or quality of life when it won't do any good.  But hey, John Kerry did his part by flying in to Obama's shindig on a private jet. 

Didn't Biden also sign something re: China and their emissions and how they DON'T need to cut back and can indeed increase them? 

Opinion piece: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-cant-china-kick-its-coal-habit-11627917909?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

China is BUILDING additional coal mines and plants. They also produce nearly 70% of our car batteries - does anyone know what happens to the batteries when they are no longer useful? Or when lithium stores run out? 

How can CA provide changing stations when they SHUT OFF power every year when the wind kicks up? Charging stations that are fueled by DIESEL generators? 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

Throwing monkey wrenches?  Because I stated the truth that no climate scientist has stated that GW can be reversed or even arrested.  That our hypocrite leaders know this and yet perpetuate the ruse to line their own pockets.  And I am the problem?  Not Kerry or Gore with their global footprints the size of small countries.  You're looney.

You’re insane. I mean basically your argument is we’re going to destroy ourselves anyway soon so why bother doing anything. AND FURTHER anyone who does is just a scammer and hypocrite since we’re all going to be annihilated anyway. I mean I am and always have been a pessimist so I don’t necessarily disagree with your root prediction, but your analysis of who the problem people are is truly focking lunacy

[edjr 6,578]

Neither can covid. We are a focking failure as a world.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re insane. I mean basically your argument is we’re going to destroy ourselves anyway soon so why bother doing anything. AND FURTHER anyone who does is just a scammer and hypocrite since we’re all going to be annihilated anyway. I mean I am and always have been a pessimist so I don’t necessarily disagree with your root prediction, but your analysis of who the problem people are is truly focking lunacy

Where have I said we should do nothing? 

[Mike Honcho 5,124]

5 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

"Certain annihilation".  You should watch the certain annihilation video of global cooling from 40 years ago that I posted. 

People learn new stuff over time.  LIke some 40+ years ago, your parents thought it was a good idea to have kids, now we have learned that was a terrible idea.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

People learn new stuff over time.  LIke some 40+ years ago, your parents thought it was a good idea to have kids, now we have learned that was a terrible idea.

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

Where have I said we should do nothing? 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

You read a story that informs you of something everyone else knew 10 years ago, and you go off the reservation. it's ok. 

[Strike 5,233]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yeah did you see the part where I said it was a global problem and we can’t get enough people together on it, dum dum?

”We” haven’t done nearly enough, not even close. Hurting our economy is somewhat irrelevant since the alternative is mass devastation. But I agree, it can’t be done given global challenges anyway. We can’t even get focktards like you in our own country on board, we sure as sh1t aren’t getting China, India etc to join in too

Who says I"m not on board?  I've been advocating for Nuclear power for at least a decade.  It's the cleanest mainstream power source we have  and, instead of embracing it and expanding it's use, we've made it more and more difficult to roll out.   But I'm not going to advocate for destroying our economy when it won't help much anyways. 

Also, as noted above, we don't know the true effects of global warming.  It's all computer simulations and guess what?  Those simulations have been wrong 100% of the time to date the last time I checked. 

There is a great book out called "Apocalypse Never."  It was written by a very credible environmental activist to separate fact from fiction, and show why big money has a lot to do with the whole global warming alarmism.  I haven't finished it yet but it's a great read so far.  You might learn something if you read it, although I question your ability to read anything above a 3rd grade level so you may want to get the audio book.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re off your rocker. Temperature is going to rise by about four degrees CELSIUS in just the next several decades if we don’t pull our act together. There is absolutely no way shape or form that is good. 

 

No need to attack someone that has a different opinion. The 4 degrees C over a few decades seems unlikely as well.  Most likely we will stabilize in the middle of the projections and be 2.5-3 C hotter over the next century.

 

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/

Finally, projections of various future greenhouse gas concentrations highlight the futures we can yet choose between. It is still physically possible to limit warming to 1.5° C or 2° C, given the will to act. It is likewise still possible to cross 4° C or 5° C by 2100, given a sufficiently blatant disregard for current and future life on our planet.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Who says I"m not on board?  I've been advocating for Nuclear power for at least a decade.  It's the cleanest mainstream power source we have  and, instead of embracing it and expanding it's use, we've made it more and more difficult to roll out.   But I'm not going to advocate for destroying our economy when it won't help much anyways. 

Also, as noted above, we don't know the true effects of global warming.  It's all computer simulations and guess what?  Those simulations have been wrong 100% of the time to date the last time I checked. 

There is a great book out called "Apocalypse Never."  It was written by a very credible environmental activist to separate fact from fiction, and show why big money has a lot to do with the whole global warming alarmism.  I haven't finished it yet but it's a great read so far.  You might learn something if you read it, although I question your ability to read anything above a 3rd grade level so you may want to get the audio book.

Oh okay. You’re on board but also it’s all phooey. Excuse me for misunderstanding

[Utilit99 4,099]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

People learn new stuff over time.  LIke some 40+ years ago, your parents thought it was a good idea to have kids, now we have learned that was a terrible idea.

I'll put any of my family member's productive and quality lives over your weak existence anytime lame ass. 

Nice try on the deflection wimp.

 

[Strike 5,233]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Oh okay. You’re on board but also it’s all phooey. Excuse me for misunderstanding

Where did I sat it was all phooey?  Pretty sure I didn't say anything remotely close to that.  SkiBum and I are trying to have a real conversation with you.  But, as usual, that's pretty much impossible.  You've made up your mind and that's that.  Have fun with that.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

2 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

No need to attack someone that has a different opinion. The 4 degrees C over a few decades seems unlikely as well.  Most likely we will stabilize in the middle of the projections and be 2.5-3 C hotter over the next century.

 

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/

Finally, projections of various future greenhouse gas concentrations highlight the futures we can yet choose between. It is still physically possible to limit warming to 1.5° C or 2° C, given the will to act. It is likewise still possible to cross 4° C or 5° C by 2100, given a sufficiently blatant disregard for current and future life on our planet.

Look I’m trying not to attack but I find your viewpoint alarming. Well gee it might only be three degrees Celsius and there could be some tiny little marginal benefit to weigh against total annihilation!

It’s crazy, and you know it’s crazy. You’re just so heavily invested in energy that it clouds your otherwise clear judgment.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Where did I sat it was all phooey?  Pretty sure I didn't say anything remotely close to that.  SkiBum and I are trying to have a real conversation with you.  But, as usual, that's pretty much impossible.  You've made up your mind and that's that.  Have fun with that.

Yeah you’re right. I should read a book about how it’s all alarmism and you’ve learned so much from it and maybe my dumb ass would too, but sure yeah you still take the problem seriously and you’re on board to deal with it even though literally everything you say is the opposite

I’m all for a conversation, but not with disingenuous people.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

4 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

I'll put any of my family member's productive and quality lives over your weak existence anytime lame ass. 

Nice try on the deflection wimp.

 

Now this guy is honest.

Completely focking stupid. But honest

[Utilit99 4,099]

worms went to the dr. aoc climate control conference. He studied it real hard. 

Gullible retard.

[Strike 5,233]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yeah you’re right. I should read a book about how it’s all alarmism and you’ve learned so much from it and maybe my dumb ass would too, but sure yeah you still take the problem seriously and you’re on board to deal with it even though literally everything you say is the opposite

I’m all for a conversation, but not with disingenuous people.

WTF are you talking about?  The book doesn't say it's all alarmism.  Fock, why is everything black and white with you?  This issue isn't "there is global warming and we will all die from it" versus "There isn't anything to even discuss re: global warming."  It's somewhere in between and what we should be discussing is how we approach dealing with it.  Do we go all in to try to stop/reverse is, do we mitigate what we can and adjust to the warming that has/will happen, or do we do nothing?   That's the discussion.  But not to you. 

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

8 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Look I’m trying not to attack but I find your viewpoint alarming. Well gee it might only be three degrees Celsius and there could be some tiny little marginal benefit to weigh against total annihilation!

It’s crazy, and you know it’s crazy. You’re just so heavily invested in energy that it clouds your otherwise clear judgment.

 

The O/G industry is going to die, there is a reason I moved to programming, data analytics, etc. If my company tried to transfer me back into operations i would immediately start looking for another job. I will need to switch industries in the next 10-15 years and staying in software is the easiest path for me to change to a different industry.

The rate at which electric cars are going to take off will be crazy over the next 10 years. Even I have a preorder in for an electric vehicle, Ford Lightning. I also think rooftop solar will not be too far behind electric cars.

I do not let the fact that i work for big oil cloud my views on MMGW.

 

My views on how global warming will effect the climate are by reading many real scientific articles, like the one i linked from science direct and ars technica. I prefer reading articles where the author has at least a science degree if not a PHD over a NYT article.

[NorthernVike 2,083]

Hydrogen in the future.  Invest in HYSR while it's still a penny stock and thank me in five years. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,966]

Pollution is bad. Less of it would be good, climate change or not. But how was Al Gore and many others supposed to get rich on that message? Needed to scare everyone.  Oh yeah, votes too. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

WTF are you talking about?  The book doesn't say it's all alarmism.  Fock, why is everything black and white with you?  This issue isn't "there is global warming and we will all die from it" versus "There isn't anything to even discuss re: global warming."  It's somewhere in between and what we should be discussing is how we approach dealing with it.  Do we go all in to try to stop/reverse is, do we mitigate what we can and adjust to the warming that has/will happen, or do we do nothing?   That's the discussion.  But not to you. 

YOU SAID it was alarmism

I mean, sure you can pull the well let’s just do a little bit and not really worry about it tack. But that just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. This isn’t some policy quandary to tinker with, it effects everything. Fresh water, crops, livestock, where you live, storms, heat stroke, rising sea levels, mass extinctions, EVERYTHING 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

6 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

The O/G industry is going to die, there is a reason I moved to programming, data analytics, etc. If my company tried to transfer me back into operations i would immediately start looking for another job. I will need to switch industries in the next 10-15 years and staying in software is the easiest path for me to change to a different industry.

The rate at which electric cars are going to take off will be crazy over the next 10 years. Even I have a preorder in for an electric vehicle, Ford Lightning. I also think rooftop solar will not be too far behind electric cars.

I do not let the fact that i work for big oil cloud my views on MMGW.

 

My views on how global warming will effect the climate are by reading many real scientific articles, like the one i linked from science direct and ars technica. I prefer reading articles where the author has at least a science degree if not a PHD over a NYT article.

Of course that’s a good thing but your article said the exact same thing as the article linked. If we took really super drastic action right now, then maybe we can limit how bad it gets. It’ll still happen, but maybe it can be just kinda bad instead of devastating the entire human race.

If we DON’T take immediate drastic action on a global scale, we’re focked and it’ll be extremely devastating.

Right? Do you disagree with that somewhere?

If not then why even bother saying “well we can’t be 100% certain  exactly HOW it will be devastating” and “hey maybe there’s some chance but that by some freak occurrence there will actually be one or two good things that come out of devastating the entire planet”?