Latest IPCC report ramps up climate hysteria

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.htm l

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.

The new report, however, shows that many of those effects will come much sooner, at the 2.7-degree mark.

Avoiding the most serious damage requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of $54 trillion. But while they conclude that it is technically possible to achieve the rapid changes required to avoid 2.7 degrees of warming, they concede that it may be politically unlikely.

For instance, the report says that heavy taxes or prices on carbon dioxide emissions — perhaps as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100 — would be required. But such a move would be almost politically impossible in the United States, the world’s largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China. Lawmakers around the world, including in China, the European Union and California, have enacted carbon pricing programs.

Avoiding the most serious damage requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of $54 trillion. But while they conclude that it is technically possible to achieve the rapid changes required to avoid 2.7 degrees of warming, they concede that it may be politically unlikely.

For instance, the report says that heavy taxes or prices on carbon dioxide emissions — perhaps as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100 — would be required. But such a move would be almost politically impossible in the United States, the world’s largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China. Lawmakers around the world, including in China, the European Union and California, have enacted carbon pricing programs.

The report was written and edited by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies. The Paris agreement set out to prevent warming of more than 3.6 degrees above preindustrial levels — long considered a threshold for the most severe social and economic damage from climate change. But the heads of small island nations, fearful of rising sea levels, had also asked scientists to examine the effects of 2.7 degrees of warming.

Absent aggressive action, many effects once expected only several decades in the future will arrive by 2040, and at the lower temperature, the report shows. “It’s telling us we need to reverse emissions trends and turn the world economy on a dime,” said Myles Allen, an Oxford University climate scientist and an author of the report.

To prevent 2.7 degrees of warming, the report said, greenhouse pollution must be reduced by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. It also found that, by 2050, use of coal as an electricity source would have to drop from nearly 40 percent today to between 1 and 7 percent. Renewable energy such as wind and solar, which make up about 20 percent of the electricity mix today, would have to increase to as much as 67 percent.

“This report makes it clear: There is no way to mitigate climate change without getting rid of coal,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University and an author of the report.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/unprecedented-changes-in-all-aspects-of-society-needed-to-meet-global-warming-target-ipcc-report/news-story/ecd1791a8d0cc99960525715ad9e0dc7

CSIRO research scientist and executive director of the Global Carbon Project, Dr Pep Canadell, said the special report was probably the last reminder that there were no insolvable biophysical or technical impediments to meet the lowest temperature targets in the Paris Agreement.

But he said it would require the “almost immediate establishment of a global carbon market, carbon pricing across all sectors of the economy, massive energy efficiency gains, significant consumer changes in diets, actions to reduce peak global population, and the immediate and growing deployment of options for the direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, including the pervasive need for carbon capture and storage in most cases.“

To meet the target, the use of coal for electricity would be ruled out from 2050.

There would be drastic changes in land use, including reforestation and planting crops for energy to suck CO2 from the atmosphere and burying emissions when they were burnt.

A shift in diet towards less meat was described in the summary for policy makers as the need for “healthy consumption patterns”, “responsible consumption” and “sustainable diets”.

The provision of billions of dollars in finance to help developing nations would be crucial.

The IPCC said limiting global warming to 1.5C compared to 2C could “go hand-in-hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society.”

————

doom..more doom..some more doom..floods, heatwaves, RISING SEAS!!!, hot days, cold days..oops..no..not cold days..lots of rain and no rain..yada yada..

controlling us has 3 tiers..energy/electricity..agriculture..transport..the first tier has been in play for a decade..they are now moving to agriculture and transport..

this story is a global saturation level event..i saw the same professor interviewed twice on different channels and the questions he was asked were exactly the same..every news channel in mainstream media outlets in western countries would have run this story exactly the way the IPCC/UN wanted it to be run..

this is frightening: “the report says that heavy taxes or prices on carbon dioxide emissions — perhaps as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100 — would be required.”

401

~ by seeker401 on October 9, 2018.

12 Responses to “Latest IPCC report ramps up climate hysteria”

  1. The green religion cult followers:

    • its always worse then before..but all their claims never happen..its like a twilight zone..

      • their claims never do happen – spot on. And yet people are indoctrinated with the same lies, they beat a lifeless horse, and so it cycles back again always worse than before.

  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. https://youtu.be/D-m09lKtYT4

  3. CAP AND TRADE: V.P. Al Gore and Enron’s CEO Ken Lay devised this trading scheme. Full text https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4502085/steve-scalise-challenges-al-gore-climate-change

  4. Climate Change 50% Change; radiative warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated by about 50%. https://youtu.be/MS0qLhqaZDM

  5. Another long B.S. article from the climate changers interweaving two entirely different issues.

    To Save a World: Geoengineering, Conflictual Futurisms, and the Unthinkable

    The Anthropocene is proving to be an era of world war, or rather, worlds at war. Not that this is anything new. We are no doubt living in the continuation of longstanding onto-epistemological and politico-military conflicts set within (still unfolding) histories of colonial and global states of violence and dispossession. If catastrophe lies before us, then it flows from what’s come before. Consider two ideological formations that speak to our current situation. First, geoengineering’s techno-utopianism, which is premised on climate-change fixes for the symptoms of fossil capital’s centuries-long effect on the environment. Adherents suggest that solar radiation management and carbon capture can stabilize temperatures so as to avert calamitous environmental transformation. The Breakthrough Institute offers a futurist vision of the “good Anthropocene,” articulated as a coming world where “humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.”

    The second formation we should consider is the tragic and redemptive Afrofuturism appearing in Arthur Jafa’s shattering 2016 video Love is the Message, the Message is Death. As one model among numerous Indigenous and anticolonial futurisms embedded within social movements dedicated to justice-to-come, it foregrounds the heartrending violence of the present as the fundamental basis upon which any alternative—one of co-existence, equality, love, and peace—can be imagined.

    Following the impulses behind the 2016 Movement for Black Lives Platform, which built on longstanding African-American approaches to environmental justice, it is crucial to bring these politico-ecological strands together in intersectional analysis. The above two modelings of the future offer an expedient comparison between the current techno-scientific rationality of climate-change response and the social in/justice concerns around racial capitalism. It invites a much-needed discussion of futures that could potentially be locked in for hundreds, even thousands of years, especially in light of the fact that technocratic climate science tends to ignore, or, at best, merely pays lip service to the differential impacts of environmental transformations on disenfranchised communities subject to ongoing racial and economic discrimination, and that social justice activism also tends to shunt ecological matters to the side due to an all-too-immediate confrontation with police brutality.

    https://www.e-flux.com/journal/94/221148/to-save-a-world-geoengineering-conflictual-futurisms-and-the-unthinkable/

    I’m pretty darn sure the ‘futures’ THEY’RE talking about have more to do with Wall Street and the wealth of the kings of the world, than anyone’s ‘lives’.

  6. A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made ‘volcanic’ eruption
    Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.
    by James Rainey / Oct. 11, 2018

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/last-ditch-global-warming-fix-man-made-volcanic-eruption-n918826

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: