After 8 years, next IPCC report on climate change on its way

[Strathos]

If you actually follow the money, you'll see that the rich fossil fuel lobbies have a vested interest in climate change denial, and have spent billions of dollars to discredit the science. There is no equivalent financial source for the other side.

 

[partinobodycular]

Here's the thing, you NEED to have people running around like chickens with their head's cut off yelling the sky is falling, even if the sky isn't actually falling.

They serve a very important function in society. They keep everybody from not paying attention, which people are very prone to doing until it's too late. Now we may all look at these chickens like they're idiots, but we still need them to be there, because every once in a while there actually is a problem. Remember thalidomide?

But the thing is that we need chickens on both sides. We need chickens yelling the sky is falling, and we need chickens yelling BS those other chickens are idiots. They serve to balance each other out, and hopefully cooler heads will find what the actual truth is and act accordingly. (Unfortunately we're stuck with the media and the government, so "cooler heads" have a couple of extra layers of BS to deal with.)

So here's what we do, we listen to both sides, we don't panic, we voice our concerns, and we take prudent action. Now we can argue back and forth about what that prudent action should look like, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take it.

To me here's the issue:

If global warming alarmists are correct then we're going to end up with some measure of economic, social, and environmental catastrophe within the not too distant future. People and animals are going to die.

If on the other hand the global warming deniers are correct, then we're simply going to waste a whole lot of money doing a whole lot of unnecessary things, but other than that we're all going to get through this just fine.

So I say spend the money. Spending money employs people. And spending money trying not to screw up the environment seems like a win win to me. Put people to work, and try not to kill the polar bears while you're doing it. How can that be bad?

 

[Belk]

To each their own, everybody got some rocketscientishs and neurosurgeons as friends, in online anecdotal evidence.

Only neurosurgeon I know was the one who did the two brain surgeries on me. To be clear even if I did not know an actual climate scientist (and he does not work as one since Mars ate his Phd.) I still would not find your claims credible.

I do not need it. I resaerched for myself.

What is your background in scientific research? Because I'm going to guess you are a layman on this topic the same as most of us.

Up to you if you want to free your mind, and find out for yourself. You can start with John Cook, and cook et al "report". Not terribly long and hard to read, and do not have to read far to understand that you have been lied a bit to. Just 10 pages, and I would focus mostly on the graphic nr 4-7 if I remember correctly. He is violating the scientific rules there. Since I assume you are awere of the 97% thing, which become the 99,7% later on. Your choice, I am not emotionally involved in that issue anymore. What will be, will be, so no point in it occupying my mind.

Or I could go with the scientific consensus since I have zero reason to believe the people who study this are misrepresenting it for some unknown nefarious reason.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If global warming alarmists are correct then...

If on the other hand the global warming deniers are correct...

Maybe we should listen to the data and analysis presented by hundreds of climate scientists instead?

 

[mindfulzen]

Only neurosurgeon I know was the one who did the two brain surgeries on me. To be clear even if I did not know an actual climate scientist (and he does not work as one since Mars ate his Phd.) I still would not find your claims credible.



What is your background in scientific research? Because I'm going to guess you are a layman on this topic the same as most of us.



Or I could go with the scientific consensus since I have zero reason to believe the people who study this are misrepresenting it for some unknown nefarious reason.

You only know one brainsurgeon, hahaHA. That is not much, I know the one who operated me, and I later got to meet the head of brainsurgery, who apologized for it noot being 100%. Guess my anecdotal evidence wins then.

I have a Phd in mixocology, if you must know, so I am actuaslly in this climatefield. I am also a dropout from computer engineering, so there is that. The physiscs stuff, the mathstuff and the programming stuff, is kind of what you would need to understand studies, and write a report, if it was needed at all. Which it is not. Stop discouraging common folks from reading for themselves, give them confidence in themselves instead. Yes, they can, yes we can for ourselves. I am overqualified in the polar caps thing for instance, solved that issue in 20-30 minutes, almost a decade ago, and have like 3 or 4 cheap fixes. Others will eventually figure it out later, if it gets dire.

Go with whatever you like, if you like what you believe now, do not read Cook et al, otherwise you might lose trhat one. I only have faith in God, not in man of science. I question most of that, by reading up on it, if it interest me. I am more about tecnological solutions, than restating that we have a problem. I suggest you follow.

 

[Belk]

You only know one brainsurgeon, hahaHA. That is not much, I know the one who operated me, and I later got to meet the head of brainsurgery, who apologized for it noot being 100%. Guess my anecdotal evidence wins then.

Brain Surgeon is two words.

I have a Phd in mixocology, if you must know, so I am actuaslly in this climatefield. I am also a dropout from computer engineering, so there is that. The physiscs stuff, the mathstuff and the programming stuff, is kind of what you would need to understand studies, and write a report, if it was needed at all. Which it is not. Stop discouraging common folks from reading for themselves, give them confidence in themselves instead.

I do not discourage people from reading for themselves. That is a great thing. I discourage people from thinking their opinion is superior to experts since it is not the vast majority of the time.

Yes, they can, yes we can for ourselves. I am overqualified in the polar caps thing for instance, solved that issue in 20-30 minutes, almost a decade ago, and have like 3 or 4 cheap fixes. Others will eventually figure it out later, if it gets dire.

Yes. Things tend to be easier when solutions are divorced from the reality of the situation. Most likely why history is replete with people overestimating their ability to handle issues.

Go with whatever you like, if you like what you believe now, do not read Cook et al, otherwise you might lose trhat one. I only have faith in God, not in man of science. I question most of that, by reading up on it, if it interest me. I am more about tecnological solutions, than restating that we have a problem. I suggest you follow.

Thank you but no. I'll go with the people who have a chance of crafting solutions that work.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

First you have to state you disagree with me, before you state you agree with my points. Why must there be two sides for you? I am not on either side. I just tell it like it is, what I know.

Sorry, I thought what I said was fairly obvious. I disagree with your view of climate science and climate scientists, and while I acknowledge there are attempts to influence science and its public presentation, I don't think they invalidate it.

It makes no sense at all, to cut emissions at oil platforms for instance, since sea take up 20 times more CO2 than vegetasion does. And nature absorbs it anyway.

Unfortunately, the sea is not an unlimited carbon sink, and acidification is already becoming a problem, mobilising carbon from carbonates (shells, corals, rocks). Nature is close to capacity for CO₂ - even the amazon rainforest is now a net emitter.

 

[mindfulzen]

Sorry, I thought what I said was fairly obvious. I disagree with your view of climate science and climate scientists, and while I acknowledge there are attempts to influence science and its public presentation, I don't think they invalidate it.


Unfortunately, the sea is not an unlimited carbon sink, and acidification is already becoming a problem, mobilising carbon from carbonates (shells, corals, rocks). Nature is close to capacity for CO₂ - even the amazon rainforest is now a net emitter.

You state that money influence, that they do science on commission, right. There are no moneytree, right? Either you get federal grants from the envirnomental department to keep projects rolling out, and get the school recognized, and desired by students, right. You aknowledge that universities do compete for grantmoney and private funding of projects, so your students excel, right?

Schools compete, it is a marketplace, everything is a marketplace. No science is altruistic, all science is to seek a predermined outcome. Then the clever projectleaders get to work, and with creativity, they kind of reverse engineer to get the ordered outcome to work out in the models. You test that timeframe, dang did not get the spike in the graph, so you extend it, or narrow it, eureka, it worked. I am sorry, it is what the head of the green tech department at my former college stated, and that I have confirmed by researching. Why would they not do it? Right or wrong, just the way it is. Limits to universitystatus. Colleges have to outshine others to get universitystatus. And it is like in pro cycling, when everybody is doing steroids, you must too mentality. Or you cannot compete.

I have not said that the sea is an unlimited carbon sink. If you want to know the scientific in specifics, just ask. Same with aci9dification. Not answering strawmen. Here you go again, and put baby in the corner. Nobody puts baby in the corner. I am not on any side on the broad and vague stuff, I am on the issues side. I just add. I do not have an opinion on what you should or should not do. I cannot vote in other countries. I do not vote here either. It is up to God what happens, have faith. Politicians and countries just bicker, never agree.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You state that money influence, that they do science on commission, right. There are no moneytree, right? Either you get federal grants from the envirnomental department to keep projects rolling out, and get the school recognized, and desired by students, right. You aknowledge that universities do compete for grantmoney and private funding of projects, so your students excel, right?

Schools compete, it is a marketplace, everything is a marketplace. No science is altruistic, all science is to seek a predermined outcome. Then the clever projectleaders get to work, and with creativity, they kind of reverse engineer to get the ordered outcome to work out in the models. You test that timeframe, dang did not get the spike in the graph, so you extend it, or narrow it, eureka, it worked. I am sorry, it is what the head of the green tech department at my former college stated, and that I have confirmed by researching. Why would they not do it? Right or wrong, just the way it is. Limits to universitystatus. Colleges have to outshine others to get universitystatus. And it is like in pro cycling, when everybody is doing steroids, you must too mentality. Or you cannot compete.

Different countries have different ways of doing things.

It is up to God what happens, have faith.

It is up to us what happens, for better or for worse.

 

[sjastro]

Maybe we should listen to the data and analysis presented by hundreds of climate scientists instead?

Now that would be difficult given armchair experts are prolific breeders and considerably outnumber climate scientists.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have a Phd in mixocology, if you must know

Pfft, college boy.

 

[Gene2memE]

It makes no sense at all, to cut emissions at oil platforms for instance, since sea take up 20 times more CO2 than vegetasion does.

No. Not even slightly.

The estimates are that Earth's seas and oceans absorb somewhere between 8 giggatonnes (Gt) and 10 Gt of carbon emissions every year.

Earth's vegetation is estimated to absorb somewhere between 12 Gt and 14 Gt of carbon emissions every year.

Not only does the sea absorb less carbon than vegetation, CO2 absorption by the oceans leads to acidification - which is really, really bad.

Also, that's not how any of this work - it doesn't matter whether the oil is sourced from land sites or ocean sites, burning it still produces carbon emissions.

And nature absorbs it anyway.

Eventually. However, C02 has an extended atmospheric dwell time. If you emitted 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere now, about 50% would be gone in 50 years, and 70% would be gone in 100 years.

In the interim, that atmospheric carbon dioxide is producing greenhouse warming.

And increase the demand for energy in europe, that makes coalplants in eastern europe still viable. Stuff like that.

European energy demand has been essentially flat since 2008 (marginally decreasing).

Coal consumption in the EU has declined by more than 50% since 1990. 1990 consumption was 383 million tonnes, 2019 consumption was 169 million tonnes. Coal now accounts for less than 10% of the total EU energy supply (renewables are at nearly 30%).

The biggest increase in imports from Eastern Europe is for natural gas and oil products - since 1990 imports of natural gas have more than doubled, and oil imports are up ~40%.

 

[That Guy 11200]

Climate scientist is a politically engineered word, used for an agenda, to keep folks dumbed down and not questioning anything. Deceptive. A word of the devil if you will. Those who refer to it, are the most uninformed on the issue, I suggest you stop using it. If we have a panel of various fields of science people, then they can call it a climate science panel.

Otherwise it is just a manipulative tool. And you do not have to have a degree in that field to write a report on their work, any person with a degree can do that and peer review the work. A doctor casn do it, psychiatrist can do that, and it is done. Have a little faith in yourself and make your own report if you care about the issue. Look at models and methodology in a study, and statement of purpose, then make your own report. It is fun when you are interested in it.

No. It's just a term that refers to people who study various aspects of climate - be it past, present or possible future climate conditions. It's no more or less political than a term like 'materials scientist', to refer to people who study the properties of man-made and natural materials.

 

[BeyondET]

If the world wants to reduce it's carbon footprint. the world has to get on China because China puts out more gasses than most of the world combined.

 

[Occams Barber]

If the world wants to reduce it's carbon footprint. the world has to get on China because China puts out more gasses than most of the world combined.

To be fair you need to look at per capita output of CO2. China has the biggest population in the world but it sits at 41st when it comes to per capita CO2 output.

China's per capita CO2 is 7.38 tons; half that of the US which pumps out 15.52 tons per head of population.

Australia (my own country) is a disaster at 17.10 tons per head while Canada puts out a wacking 18.58 tons per person.

If China was a number of smaller countries with a collective average of 7.38 tons per head you wouldn't have even noticed.

It's true, China does need to get it's figures down, but getting down from 15.52 (the US) is a lot easier than reducing from a starting point of 7.38 tons per head.

OB

 

[Gene2memE]

If the world wants to reduce it's carbon footprint. the world has to get on China because China puts out more gasses than most of the world combined.

Nope.

China's share of global CO2 emissions is about 27% to 33% (for 2020, depending on who is doing the measuring). Which means the rest of the world produces about two to three times more.

On a per capita basis, China's emissions are about 6.5 to 7.5 tonnes per year. Which means it averages less than half of the per capita emissions that Western countries do.

Oh, and one of the reason why China's emissions are so high is that it makes so much stuff for the rest of the world - about 20% of its economy is just producing things for the rest of us. Particularly lots of the dirty, dangerous and polluting stuff that the West outsourced in the 1990s.

Oh, and China is moving to reduce its footprint:

• China is the world's fastest adopter of solar power and the largest producer of solar and wind energy.
  
• China is the world's largest producer of energy from renewable sources.
  
• China has been the world's largest investor in renewables energy and renewable R&D for the last eight years running. China
• China's national investment in renewables was nearly 50% greater than US investment in 2019.
  
• China produces about 27% of its total energy from renewables. The US is a mere 12%, and the EU is 20%.

 

[BeyondET]

Nope.

China's share of global CO2 emissions is about 27% to 33% (for 2020, depending on who is doing the measuring). Which means the rest of the world produces about two to three times more.

On a per capita basis, China's emissions are about 6.5 to 7.5 tonnes per year. Which means it averages less than half of the per capita emissions that Western countries do.

Oh, and one of the reason why China's emissions are so high is that it makes so much stuff for the rest of the world - about 20% of its economy is just producing things for the rest of us. Particularly lots of the dirty, dangerous and polluting stuff that the West outsourced in the 1990s.

Oh, and China is moving to reduce its footprint:

• China is the world's fastest adopter of solar power and the largest producer of solar and wind energy.
  
• China is the world's largest producer of energy from renewable sources.
  
• China has been the world's largest investor in renewables energy and renewable R&D for the last eight years running. China
• China's national investment in renewables was nearly 50% greater than US investment in 2019.
  
• China produces about 27% of its total energy from renewables. The US is a mere 12%, and the EU is 20%.

China doesn't not produce 27% renewable energy it produces 27% global green house gases more than twice the amount of the U.S.
China is lying to you if you think it's leading the world wanting to clean up its act. just look at the yellow river 10% of the river is waste human industrial

 

[BeyondET]

To be fair you need to look at per capita output of CO2. China has the biggest population in the world but it sits at 41st when it comes to per capita CO2 output.

China's per capita CO2 is 7.38 tons; half that of the US which pumps out 15.52 tons per head of population.

Australia (my own country) is a disaster at 17.10 tons per head while Canada puts out a wacking 18.58 tons per person.

If China was a number of smaller countries with a collective average of 7.38 tons per head you wouldn't have even noticed.

It's true, China does need to get it's figures down, but getting down from 15.52 (the US) is a lot easier than reducing from a starting point of 7.38 tons per head.

OB

To be fair no information on China comes from China with out the CCP approval they have fed the world lies and continues too. And they will get their figures down on paper but not in reality

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

To be fair no information on China comes from China with out the CCP approval they have fed the world lies and continues too. And they will get their figures down on paper but not in reality

Who says anybody takes information from China as gospel. There are lots of ways to measure and confirm the data and the people like Oak Ridge National labs who agree with those numbers are not ignorant.

 

[BeyondET]

Who says anybody takes information from China as gospel. There are lots of ways to measure and confirm the data and the people like Oak Ridge National labs who agree with those numbers are not ignorant.

Of course when Chinese money is involved, you can trust worldly companies to be honest I'm not. Specially when they have mutual agreement with China working on salt water nuclear reactors