take that liberals Spoiler Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040 Image Harry Taylor, 6, played with the bones of dead livestock on his family’s farm in New South Wales, Australia, an area that has faced severe drought.CreditBrook Mitchell/Getty Images By Coral Davenport Oct. 7, 2018 Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter. INCHEON, South Korea — A landmark report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.” The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population. The report “is quite a shock, and quite concerning,” said Bill Hare, an author of previous I.P.C.C. reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization. “We were not aware of this just a few years ago.” The report was the first to be commissioned by world leaders under the Paris agreement, the 2015 pact by nations to fight global warming. The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change. People on a smog-clouded street in Hebei Province, China, in 2016. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by the United States. CreditDamir Sagolj/Reuters President Trump, who has mocked the science of human-caused climate change, has vowed to increase the burning of coal and said he intends to withdraw from the Paris agreement. And on Sunday in Brazil, the world’s seventh-largest emitter of greenhouse gas, voters appeared on track to elect a new president, Jair Bolsonaro, who has said he also plans to withdraw from the accord. President Trump has vowed to increase the burning of coal and said he intends to withdraw from the Paris agreement.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times The World Coal Association disputed the conclusion that stopping global warming calls for an end of coal use. In a statement, Katie Warrick, its interim chief executive, noted that forecasts from the International Energy Agency, a global analysis organization, “continue to see a role for coal for the foreseeable future.” Ms. Warrick said her organization intends to campaign for governments to invest in carbon capture technology. Such technology, which is currently too expensive for commercial use, could allow coal to continue to be widely used. The World Coal Association disputed the conclusion that stopping global warming calls for an end of coal use. CreditKevin Frayer/Getty Images The United States is not alone in failing to reduce emissions enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change. The report concluded that the greenhouse gas reduction pledges put forth under the Paris agreement will not be enough to avoid 3.6 degrees of warming. The report emphasizes the potential role of a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. “A price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation,” the report concludes. It estimates that to be effective, such a price would have to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030, and from $690 to $27,000 per ton by 2100. that figure was lowered to about $7 per ton. Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group funded by the libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch, has made a point of campaigning against politicians who support a carbon tax. “Carbon taxes are political poison because they increase gas prices and electric rates,” said Myron Ebell, who heads the energy program at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded Washington research organization, and who led the Trump administration’s transition at the Environmental Protection Agency. The report details the economic damage expected should governments fail to enact policies to reduce emissions. The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warming. A wildfire in Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California last month. The new I.P.C.C. research found that wildfires are likely to worsen if steps are not taken to tame climate change.CreditNoah Berger/Associated Press In addition, it said, the United States along with Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam are home to 50 million people who will be exposed to the effects of increased coastal flooding by 2040, if 2.7 degrees of warming occur. At 3.6 degrees of warming, the report predicts a “disproportionately rapid evacuation” of people from the tropics. “In some parts of the world, national borders will become irrelevant,” said Aromar Revi, director of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements and an author of the report. “You can set up a wall to try to contain 10,000 and 20,000 and one million people, but not 10 million.” The report also finds that, in the likelihood that governments fail to avert 2.7 degrees of warming, another scenario is possible: The world could overshoot that target, heat up by more than 3.6 degrees, and then through a combination of lowering emissions and deploying carbon capture technology, bring the temperature back down below the 2.7-degree threshold. In that scenario, some damage would be irreversible, the report found. All coral reefs would die. However, the sea ice that would disappear in the hotter scenario would return once temperatures had cooled off. “For governments, the idea of overshooting the target but then coming back to it is attractive because then they don’t have to make such rapid changes,” Dr. Shindell said. “But it has a lot of disadvantages.” I know there are those on this website who disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus and out of respect for their differing viewpoints I would like to say fuck you, you goddamn idiots, you failed your entire species
FAKE NEWS I saw a doc recently talking about how we have developed a system of climate-controlling satellites called "Dutch Boy." This will combat anything climate related we may run into. Unless it gets taken over by corrupt government officials
I went to a convention recently and one of the speakers was a cotton textile manufacturer talking about how changing weather patterns have completely devastated their conventional supply chain. They have moved to using cotton grown in Peru to farms in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Longer droughts in this African region are causing farmers to switch from cocoa beans to cotton as their yields decrease due to longer droughts. Ghana and the Ivory Coast produce something like 65% of the world's cocoa beans. Fake news though.
Huge "global warming" errr climate change skeptic here. Not so much skeptical that its happening and possibly / probably even assisted by man made events. I don't buy the world is doomed by it. The climate of the earth has changed significantly over the course of time and will continue to do so long after humans continue to be a species. Humans have adapted to many different climates over the past couple hundred thousand years and there is nothing to suggest we won't continue to adapt. Add that to the perception that climate science is a very shaky science with data that is very shaky. I think its highly likely that solutions will be found through geoengineering as opposed to totally upending and disrupting the global supply chain of oil. I think its silly to put arbitrary dates on "doomsday dates" such as in the title of this thread because the predictions have not been accurate in the past models have not done a good job of predicting outcomes related to climate science. I do think we should be good stewards of the earth and try to leave as small a footprint as economically possible. The transition to clean energy is a good thing. All of these things should be done, but in an orderly manner. Elon Musk pointed out the other day on the joe rogan podcast, that any switch to electric vehicles has a 25 year lead time. SO if we started to switch every car today we would be finished about the year 2042. According to the headline we are too late and will be dead. Headlines with arbitrary deadlines are stupid. CNN says we have 12 years, your headline says we have 22 years? Which one is fake news? Don't answer we already know which one.
Some “scientists” say bad things will happen by 2030. Other “scientists” say other bad things will happen by 2040. Obviously the “science” is inconclusive.
And as long as there's one singular voice of dissent, we can ignore the whole thing as fake. Just say you can't stand the thought of the libs being right and move along.
You (didn't because your'e lame) bet me that Miami wouldn't exist in 20 years. That was about 7 years ago. Miami has lost about 2mm of coastline in that 7 year period. Im feeling pretty confident.
We’ve totally fucked the Earth six ways to Sunday but there are better ways to motivate people to solve the problem than scary predictions
No, it says coastlines will be inundated and drought and poverty will be intensified. The end of humanity was not mentioned. Do those sound like desirable outcomes to you?
This is absolute shit. We have the resources and abilities to care for every person alive while not ruining the planet. We already produce enough food to feed 11 billion people. It isn't a resource or scarcity problem, it's a distribution problem. All we lack is the political will to improve distribution and pursue intense enough decarbonization to prevent the coming catastrophe.
You’ve gotta be borderline retarded to not believe man made global warming is occurring, but this is a pretty hot take. As if the cheap ass CO2 your car spewed out this morning is negated because you have a coexist sticker on it. Not to mention the privilege it takes to think the answer is throttling down the world economy to battle this problem. The famines that would be created if you vastly raise the cost of transportation. Or the advantages given to corporations when you raise emission regulations to the point that they are the only ones with the capital to build equipment that meets the emissions standards required to actually make a difference. The answer to this problem is mass scale climate conversion technology or emission conversion tech. That technology should certainly be funded by the government since it affects all of us (NASA is on the front lines of this because converting CO2 to oxygen without using a ton of energy is the only way a mars trip is possible). Regulating industries to the point where they can’t operate without jacking up the price is not the answer. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/08/technology-fight-climate-change/ https://monroeaerospace.com/blog/nasas-co2-conversion-challenge-offers-1-million-reward/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128516300569 https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-dioxide-into-fuels-artificial-photosynthesis
Capture and sequestration alone is not even close to adequate. It will take immense cuts to CO2 production to make all the sequestration in the world do anything at all. The scale of global CO2 production is almost impossible to fathom. But shaming someone for driving a car with the only type of motor widely available is both worthless and typical of your constant concern trolling of the libs. Even amongst a people as wasteful and decadent as America, the emissions the average person is responsible for is absolutely negligible. The changes needed are ones that will mostly effect people with vast amounts of money, which is why they probably won't happen.
I'll make this super easy to understand. The earth has warmed and cooled in cycles before. Yes. Absolutely. But it has never warmed at the rate it is now warming and that change happens to coincide with the industrial revolution.
Nashville shouldn't be 88 degrees in October, but I'm glad it was because I love scantily clad women.
If they don't have an exact specific date AND TIME that the world is going to end, there is really nothing we can do
It’s not adequate right now. It will be adequate in the future or we’re fucked. Regardless of what we do right now. Here’s a report on the costs it will take to adequately battle this problem in the short run: https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-will-it-cost-to-mitigate-climate-change Here’s a report talking about how increased poverty leads to a decrease in carbon emissions and vice versa. Meaning China and India continuing to thrive is only going to increase emissions. And them not thriving means our cost of living will increase, driving more Americans into poverty. https://futureoflife.org/2016/08/05/developing-countries-cant-afford-climate-change/?cn-reloaded=1 Here’s an article talking about how the cost estimates of climate change regulations depend mainly on carbon capture technology. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...uld-double-without-carbon-capture-technology/ My main point is that this is a huge example of why the toxic nature of politics is so fucking bad. We aren’t talking to each other about ways to solve this problem that are also economically feasible and reasonable. We’re just screaming at each other about how bad it’s gonna be or not be and then gloat when examples that fit our argument pop up.
That's because a large portion of people don't think it's a problem in the first place. If you can't even agree on the premise you'll get nowhere on a solution.
That’s what I’m saying. Republicans on a large scale are acting absolutely retarded in that aspect. Democrats are acting unreasonable about how to actually stop it. And exaggerating how fast this is going to doom us all is making the tmbrules of the world double down on their beliefs when these exaggerated claims don’t occur.