UN climate report: Scientists release 'survival guide' to avert climate disaster

[onthedarkside]

 

UN chief Antonio Guterres says a major new report on climate change is a "survival guide for humanity".

 

Clean energy and technology can be exploited to avoid the growing climate disaster, the report says.

 

But at a meeting in Switzerland to agree their findings, climate scientists warned a key global temperature goal will likely be missed.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65000182

 

[onthedarkside]

UN report spells out solutions to climate ‘time bomb’

 

 

The United Nations on Monday released a “survival guide for humanity” after nearly 200 nations agreed on the wording of a major report that represents the most complete picture of climate change science in nearly a decade.

 

The Synthesis Report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) brings together the findings of its six major reports since 2018, and sets out the immense challenges humanity faces from the accelerating impacts of climate change, including more record-breaking weather disasters and quickening sea level rise.

 

But, crucially, the report also shows that there are many feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change and that these options are available now and many are affordable.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/un-report-spells-out-solutions-to-climate-time-bomb

 

[RichardColeman]

Look, I'm not a climate denier, but half the people predicting this doom and gloom were predicting an ice age by 2000 way back in the 70's and 80's

[placeholder]

 

2 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Look, I'm not a climate denier, but half the people predicting this doom and gloom were predicting an ice age by 2000 way back in the 70's and 80's

This is a blatantly false statement.

From the landing page of this forum:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

[SOTIRIOS]

...Again...Stranger Than Fiction...

[Stargeezr]

I actually believe that the Earth is warming itself up. The trace gases are not even 2 percent of the total atmosphere,

so how can they really be the big change that the Climate Alarmists would like us all to believe.

  I am starting to see reports of people doubting the alarmists.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Scott
Graphic edited out

[300sd]

Yes well 97% of scientists agree according to AL Gore. 

[onthedarkside]

Post removed from a satire website

[placeholder]

47 minutes ago, 300sd said:

Yes well 97% of scientists agree according to AL Gore. 

I don't know about Al Gore, but here's what climatologists say:

 

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

[Keep Right]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't know about Al Gore, but here's what climatologists say:

 

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

So who caused climate change millions of years ago when the earth was warming and cooling before man was even created? Maybe it had to do with the Sun which is really the cause of the earth climate change.

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, Stargeezr said:

I actually believe that the Earth is warming itself up. The trace gases are not even 2 percent of the total atmosphere,

so how can they really be the big change that the Climate Alarmists would like us all to believe.

  I am starting to see reports of people doubting the alarmists.

You may have had a point if Plymouth Rock was there since 1620 as claimed on the meme you posted, but it was only placed there in 1920 and  the rock does become completely submerged under seawater during some very high tides.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/07/18/fact-check-plymouth-rock-not-accurate-gauge-sea-level-rise/10010728002/

 

You also forgot to take into account that sea level rise is not uniform and affects some parts of the world more than others. 

 

Are sea levels rising the same all over the world, as if we're filling a giant bathtub?

No. Sea level rise is uneven, the two main reasons being ocean dynamics and Earth’s uneven gravity field.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/9/are-sea-levels-rising-the-same-all-over-the-world-as-if-were-filling-a-giant-bathtub/

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Stargeezr said:

I actually believe that the Earth is warming itself up. The trace gases are not even 2 percent of the total atmosphere,

so how can they really be the big change that the Climate Alarmists would like us all to believe.

  I am starting to see reports of people doubting the alarmists.

It's clear you haven't taken account of a thing called tides. So even if the rock wasn't moved, that fact that at some point during the day, the rock is above sea level proves nothing

As for what I assume is your  point about CO2. You think because there's so little of it, there can't be a strong effect? Do you understand that you are quarreling with the potency of CO2 that was first detected by the great Irish physicist Joseph Tyndall, and later precisely measured by the Nobel Prize winning physicist Svante Arrhenius?

And given your belief that such a small percentage couldn't possibly have a significant effect on global temperatures, I guess you're going to dispute that ozone in the stratosphere, which constitute less than 10 parts per million, a number that is about 1/40 the amount of CO2, has a negligible effect on shielding us from ultraviolet radiation. 

[nglodnig]

39 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You may have had a point if Plymouth Rock was there since 1620 as claimed on the meme

But this article also states sea-level rise in the harbourt has been 1.5 feet (that's 45 cm in real money) since 1620 - almost exactly 400 years and just over 10 cm a century or a mm a year - alarming! (NOT)

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

But this article also states sea-level rise in the harbourt has been 1.5 feet (that's 45 cm in real money) since 1620 - almost exactly 400 years and just over 10 cm a century or a mm a year - alarming! (NOT)

I can only assume you deliberately ignored my other link to NASA to explain why the sea levels are not rising at the same rates in different parts of the world.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, nglodnig said:

But this article also states sea-level rise in the harbourt has been 1.5 feet (that's 45 cm in real money) since 1620 - almost exactly 400 years and just over 10 cm a century or a mm a year - alarming! (NOT)

Well, there are a few problems with your reasoning. Sea levels haven't been rising for the past 400 years. The rise has been coincident with the advent of human caused global warming. What's more the rate of rise is increasing.

 

"The rate of global sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

 

[Credo]

8 hours ago, Keep Right said:

So who caused climate change millions of years ago when the earth was warming and cooling before man was even created? Maybe it had to do with the Sun which is really the cause of the earth climate change.

The sun has well known and well documented cycles that do affect climate.  This is not what we are talking about, any more than we are talking about the tilt of the earth is responsible for seasons. 

 

Go back to the early beginnings of life -- and you can look at the gas formations caught in rock formations. 

 

Ancient Earth had an atmosphere 70 percent carbon dioxide approximately 2.7 billion years ago. CO2 and its ability to trap heat kept the earth warm. The earliest life forms used CO2 (much like plants today), they also gave off O2 which was toxic to early life that gradually evolved to tolerate O2. Prior to life, there was no free O2 in the atmosphere. 

 

Oxygen, as you probably know, is highly reactive. Much of it reacted with elements such as iron and formed rust. At the earliest times, it quickly combined with carbon to form CO2 and with hydrogen to form water. As the earliest life forms ate up huge amounts of CO2 and expelled large amounts of O2, the atmosphere begin to have lower levels of CO2 and low, but increasing amounts of O2.  As CO2 levels dropped, so did temperatures.   

 

The increasing levels of O2 led to life forms that were able to breathe and use it, just like we do today. But in order for O2 levels to increase, carbon levels needed to decrease because left on its own, oxygen will combine with carbon to form CO2. Over time, more and more carbon was taken out of the air and buried in the form of coal and oil. This left more O2 and eventually the earth reach a state of homeostasis in which the plants using CO2 were in balance with animals using O2 and much of the excess carbon being tied up in the earth to eventually become oil and coal and large amounts tied in plants such as trees. 

 

So, now we are releasing huge amounts of carbon back into the air and it is doing what it does and combining with O2 to become CO2, which is a greenhouse gas and thus we have Climate Change.

 

 

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[Sweet Swede]

Not much hope for humanity if Asia continue with the negligent approach they have today, shortly described as denial and passetivity. Almost all registered cities in Asia are in high pollution mode, while most cities in Europe have decent PM 2.5 readings. No sign of improvement here, so I believe it is to late, to hope for a better environment. Natural events can also have a great impact, but that is not the present problem, even if the deniers insist on it and promote baseless Climate Change denial and instead blame it on natural events that happen regardless of our rape of the globe. 

[thaibeachlovers]

From the linked article

 

"

“It’s not just about the quantity of money. It’s also about how and where it is allocated. Vulnerable areas just don’t have enough money to fund the urgent need to adapt to climate change.”

United Nations Environment Programme’s executive director Inger Andersen stressed that climate change is throwing its “hardest punches” at the most vulnerable communities who bear the least responsibility for climate change, with Cyclone Freddy devastating communities in Malawi, Mozambique and Madagascar."

 

Seems it's all part of the apparent UN desire to "redistribute the wealth" from rich to poor countries.

Are they saying that those countries don't have any money, or are they just willfully ignoring that certain individuals in those countries might have most of the money?

IMO poor countries can do a lot to help themselves, if they had decent governments that invested in infrastructure, but it's easier to just hold out their hands for other people's money.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Sweet Swede said:

Not much hope for humanity if Asia continue with the negligent approach they have today, shortly described as denial and passetivity. Almost all registered cities in Asia are in high pollution mode, while most cities in Europe have decent PM 2.5 readings. No sign of improvement here, so I believe it is to late, to hope for a better environment. Natural events can also have a great impact, but that is not the present problem, even if the deniers insist on it and promote baseless Climate Change denial and instead blame it on natural events that happen regardless of our rape of the globe. 

I agree that we are raping the planet and will pay the price for that, but if anyone believes that it's all just going to go back to some illusory past golden age because we give some money to poor countries and all drive electric cars I have a bridge for sale.

To make any change at all would require major life changes- for a start let's ban all leisure flights- no more cheap holidays in the sun, no more mass tourism in Thailand ( unless by rail ) etc, ban private aircraft, and of course ban all climate conferences unless on VDO conferencing.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/22/2023 at 3:49 AM, Credo said:

The sun has well known and well documented cycles that do affect climate.  This is not what we are talking about, any more than we are talking about the tilt of the earth is responsible for seasons. 

 

Go back to the early beginnings of life -- and you can look at the gas formations caught in rock formations. 

 

Ancient Earth had an atmosphere 70 percent carbon dioxide approximately 2.7 billion years ago. CO2 and its ability to trap heat kept the earth warm. The earliest life forms used CO2 (much like plants today), they also gave off O2 which was toxic to early life that gradually evolved to tolerate O2. Prior to life, there was no free O2 in the atmosphere. 

 

Oxygen, as you probably know, is highly reactive. Much of it reacted with elements such as iron and formed rust. At the earliest times, it quickly combined with carbon to form CO2 and with hydrogen to form water. As the earliest life forms ate up huge amounts of CO2 and expelled large amounts of O2, the atmosphere begin to have lower levels of CO2 and low, but increasing amounts of O2.  As CO2 levels dropped, so did temperatures.   

 

The increasing levels of O2 led to life forms that were able to breathe and use it, just like we do today. But in order for O2 levels to increase, carbon levels needed to decrease because left on its own, oxygen will combine with carbon to form CO2. Over time, more and more carbon was taken out of the air and buried in the form of coal and oil. This left more O2 and eventually the earth reach a state of homeostasis in which the plants using CO2 were in balance with animals using O2 and much of the excess carbon being tied up in the earth to eventually become oil and coal and large amounts tied in plants such as trees. 

 

So, now we are releasing huge amounts of carbon back into the air and it is doing what it does and combining with O2 to become CO2, which is a greenhouse gas and thus we have Climate Change.

 

 

 

Soooo, lets go back to living like humans did before the industrial revolution and we'll all live happily ever after!

 

Seriously, if we actually did stop using fossil fuels ( IMO never going to happen till they run out ) expect every single thing made of oil based plastic to dramatically increase in price.

Unintended consequences and all that.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:40 PM, Stargeezr said:

I actually believe that the Earth is warming itself up. The trace gases are not even 2 percent of the total atmosphere,

so how can they really be the big change that the Climate Alarmists would like us all to believe.

  I am starting to see reports of people doubting the alarmists.

 

There is a lot ( and I'm talking about trillions ) of money to be made from the climate change thing, so follow the money.

If it was alarming as some make out ( the world will end in 5 years etc ), I'm certain an ex US president wouldn't have bought beach front property in Hawaii.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/21/2023 at 7:50 PM, nglodnig said:

But this article also states sea-level rise in the harbourt has b.een 1.5 feet (that's 45 cm in real money) since 1620 - almost exactly 400 years and just over 10 cm a century or a mm a year - alarming! (NOT)

In real terms the sea rise has been so slight that I haven't noticed any rise on the coast near where I live in over 60 years.

Perhaps some more informed posters can prove that sea level has risen more significantly in other countries, but I doubt it. It's even been claimed that floods in Bangkok are due to rising sea levels, but I'm pretty sure that is due to extracting too much water from under the city, ergo the city is sinking, not that the sea is rising.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In real terms the sea rise has been so slight that I haven't noticed any rise on the coast near where I live in over 60 years.

Perhaps some more informed posters can prove that sea level has risen more significantly in other countries, but I doubt it. It's even been claimed that floods in Bangkok are due to rising sea levels, but I'm pretty sure that is due to extracting too much water from under the city, ergo the city is sinking, not that the sea is rising.

Praise the Lord that we have you to be the measurer of all things!

 

Rate of sea level rise around New Zealand doubles in past 60 years

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/16/rate-of-sea-level-rise-around-new-zealand-doubles-in-past-60-years

 

30 years of satellite data show that global sea levels are rising in absolute terms.. But local factors either magnify or diminish that effect. In some parts of the world, the land is sinking due to such factors as extraction of ground water as you noted.. In other parts it's rising due to such phenomena as the rebound effect. Land in some parts of the world is actually rising as it still recovers from the weight of the glaciers during the latest period of near global glaciation. But, again, in absolute terms, sea levels are rising and rising at an increasing rate.