Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Yeah, isn't it so irresponsible to even have an organization watching this stuff?

We should just be getting our health care info from the oil companies.

 

When I worked for the government, I was in charge of contracting one of the Beltway Bandits to do a health effects study of raising fuel economy standards in 2009. I got to spend 1.7 million dollars. The conclusion of the study was that by 2030 if the new standards were not implemented, there would be an additional 300 deaths. This in a country that has roughly 3 million deaths every year.

Think about the absurdity of that for just a moment. 300 deaths is well within the normal margin of error for the overall death count. In other words, it's undetectable.

In addition, those 300 deaths were estimated to cost $7 million a year. It was never established whose pockets that $7 million would come from nor whose pockets it would go into.

That's the worth of bullshit studies like this.

 

Watch how fast Mitch McConnell and all of Kentucky turn into socialists, now when THEY need help.

 

Federal disaster assistance is not socialism.

The Kentucky flooding is horrific. So is some Democrats’ lack of sympathy.
Opinion by Courtney Lucas

 

I don't see any analysis suggesting that the deaths and their costs are the real problem (well, nobody likes deaths, but...)

The financial problem comes in with today's healthcare costs and the health issues that people survive.

 

First of all, claiming this is about socialISM is total BS. Nobody is in favor of socialISM.

FEMA is very definitely a social solution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism. It is something we ALL pay for, whether we think we have a need for it or not.

Your article really is slime.

You should be embarrassed.

 

You need to read more closely. We're on the same side.

 

Federal assistance is a joke. I lived in an area wiped out by a hurricane. FEMA was worthless, the only thing they did that was actually helpful was hand out big blue tarps for people to put on their roof (assuming you still had a house). Months later they provided trailers for people to live in, turns out the trailers leaked and had all kinds of problems, and later were found to have contaminants inside which made people sick.

Churches helped a lot, there were churches from all the neighboring states that sent work crews to help clear debris and rebuild. FEMA didn't ever show up in my neighborhood.

In fact, the FEMA food/water pickup where you could get ice, bottled water, MREs, was located in a town 26 miles away - a town undamaged, with power and all utilities, roads open. We were without electricity for over 4 weeks.

But Lowes setup a food/water pickup right there in our town. Thats why I always shop Lowes.

If you wanted FEMA assistance you had to sign up, fill out applications, and wait. And wait. And wait until one day a inspector would show up at your house, fill out paperwork, and wait and wait.

Most people that had homeowners insurance had their houses rebuilt or repaired (or being rebuilt/repaired) before most people who signed up with FEMA even got started.

Federal disaster assistance is a joke.

 

Perhaps a joke, and I'm sorry for your bad experience, but it's not socialism, which was my point.

 

This Report responds to the invitation for IPCC ‘… to provide a Special Report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways’ contained in the Decision of the 21st Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to adopt the Paris Agreement

.


The IPCC accepted the invitation in April 2016, deciding to prepare this Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

This Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature

relevant to global warming of 1.5°C and for the comparison between global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The level of confidence associated with each key finding is reported using the IPCC calibrated language. The underlying scientific basis of each key finding is indicated by references provided to chapter elements. In the SPM, knowledge gaps are identified associated with the underlying chapters of the Report.

A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming

above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}


A.1.1. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)

higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}


A.1.2. Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3. Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.1) {1.2, 3.3, Figure 1.5}

A.2.1. Anthropogenic emissions (including greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors) up to the present are unlikely to cause further warming of more than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence) or on a century time scale (medium confidence). {1.2.4, Figure 1.5}

A.2.2. Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal times cales (high confidence). The maximum temperature reached is then determined by cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions up to the time of net zero CO2 emissions (high confidence) and the level of non-CO2 radiative forcing in the decades prior to the time that maximum temperatures are reached (medium confidence). On longer time scales, sustained net negative global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and/or further reductions in non-CO2 radiative forcing may still be required to prevent further warming due to Earth system feedbacks and to reverse ocean acidification (medium confidence) and will be required to minimize sea level rise (high confidence). {Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, Figure 1.4, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.4.4.8, 3.4.5.1, 3.6.3.2}

A.3. Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 5.6}

A.3.1. Impacts on natural and human systems from global warming have already been observed (high confidence). Many land and ocean ecosystems and some of the services they provide have already changed due to global warming (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {1.4, 3.4, 3.5}

A.3.2. Future climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming. In the aggregate, they are larger if global warming exceeds 1.5°C before returning to that level by 2100 than if global warming gradually stabilizes at 1.5°C, especially if the peak temperature is high (e.g., about 2°C) (high confidence). Some impacts may be long-lasting or irreversible, such as the loss of some ecosystems (high confidence). {3.2, 3.4.4, 3.6.3, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

A.3.3. Adaptation and mitigation are already occurring (high confidence). Future climate-related risks would be reduced by the upscaling and acceleration of far-reaching, multilevel and cross-sectoral climate mitigation and by both incremental and transformational adaptation (high confidence). {1.2, 1.3, Table 3.5, 4.2.2, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Box 4.2, Box 4.3, Box 4.6, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.5.3}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

 

Grading their own papers.

 

Only valid if virtually all warming is assumed to be anthropogenic.

 

Panel a: Observed monthly global mean surface temperature (GMST, grey line up to 2017, from the HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, Cowtan–Way, and NOAA datasets) change and estimated anthropogenic global warming (solid orange line up to 2017, with orange shading indicating assessed likely range). Orange dashed arrow and horizontal orange error bar show respectively the central estimate and likely range of the time at which 1.5°C is reached if the current rate of warming continues. The grey plume on the right of panel a shows the likely range of warming responses, computed with a simple climate model, to a stylized pathway (hypothetical future) in which net CO2 emissions (grey line in panels b and c) decline in a straight line from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 and net non-CO2 radiative forcing (grey line in panel d) increases to 2030 and then declines. The blue plume in panel a) shows the response to faster CO2 emissions reductions (blue line in panel b), reaching net zero in 2040, reducing cumulative CO2 emissions (panel c). The purple plume shows the response to net CO2 emissions declining to zero in 2055, with net non-CO2 forcing remaining constant after 2030. The vertical error bars on right of panel a) show the likely ranges (thin lines) and central terciles (33rd – 66th percentiles, thick lines) of the estimated distribution of warming in 2100 under these three stylized pathways. Vertical dotted error bars in panels b, c and d show the likely range of historical annual and cumulative global net CO2 emissions in 2017 (data from the Global Carbon Project) and of net non-CO2 radiative forcing in 2011 from AR5, respectively. Vertical axes in panels c and d are scaled to represent approximately equal effects on GMST. {1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 2.3, Figure 1.2 and Chapter 1 Supplementary Material, Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

 

Only valid if virtually all warming is assumed to be anthropogenic.

 

B.4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence). {3.3.8, 3.4.4.7}

B.4.2. Global warming of 1.5°C is projected to shift the ranges of many marine species to higher latitudes as well as increase the amount of damage to many ecosystems. It is also expected to drive the loss of coastal resources and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (especially at low latitudes). The risks of climate-induced impacts are projected to be higher at 2°C than those at global warming of 1.5°C (high confidence). Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2ºC (very high confidence). The risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems increases with global warming, especially at 2°C or more (high confidence). {3.4.4, Box 3.4}

B.4.3. The level of ocean acidification due to increasing CO2 concentrations associated with global warming of 1.5°C is projected to amplify the adverse effects of warming, and even further at 2°C, impacting the growth, development, calcification, survival, and thus abundance of a broad range of species, for example, from algae to fish (high confidence). {3.3.10, 3.4.4}

B.4.4. Impacts of climate change in the ocean are increasing risks to fisheries and aquaculture via impacts on the physiology, survivorship, habitat, reproduction, disease incidence, and risk of invasive species (medium confidence) but are projected to be less at 1.5ºC of global warming than at 2ºC. One global fishery model, for example, projected a decrease in global annual catch for marine fisheries of about 1.5 million tonnes for 1.5°C of global warming compared to a loss of more than 3 million tonnes for 2°C of global warming (medium confidence). {3.4.4, Box 3.4}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

 

And yet HereWeGoAgain also can't answer how 2 ounces of boiling water can warm a 42 gallon bathtub.

Just the usual appeal to the supposed IPCC experts and thier computer modelling.

So what?

 

B.5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C. (Figure SPM.2) {3.4, 3.5, 5.2, Box 3.2, Box 3.3, Box 3.5, Box 3.6, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5, 5.2}

B.5.1. Populations at disproportionately higher risk of adverse consequences with global warming of 1.5°C and beyond include disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, some indigenous peoples, and local communities dependent on agricultural or coastal livelihoods (high confidence). Regions at disproportionately higher risk include Arctic ecosystems, dryland regions, small island developing states, and Least Developed Countries (high confidence). Poverty and disadvantage are expected to increase in some populations as global warming increases; limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2°C, could reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050 (medium confidence). {3.4.10, 3.4.11, Box 3.5, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5, 4.2.2.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.6.3}

B.5.2. Any increase in global warming is projected to affect human health, with primarily negative consequences (high confidence). Lower risks are projected at 1.5°C than at 2°C for heat-related morbidity and mortality (very high confidence) and for ozone-related mortality if emissions needed for ozone formation remain high (high confidence). Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heatwaves in cities (high confidence). Risks from some vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are projected to increase with warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, including potential shifts in their geographic range (high confidence). {3.4.7, 3.4.8, 3.5.5.8}

B.5.3. Limiting warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C is projected to result in smaller net reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat, and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America, and in the CO2-dependent nutritional quality of rice and wheat (high confidence). Reductions in projected food availability are larger at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming in the Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe, and the Amazon (medium confidence). Livestock are projected to be adversely affected with rising temperatures, depending on the extent of changes in feed quality, spread of diseases, and water resource availability (high confidence). {3.4.6, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, Box 3.1, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4}

B.5.4. Depending on future socio-economic conditions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C may reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to a climate change-induced increase in water stress by up to 50%, although there is considerable variability between regions (medium confidence). Many small island developing states could experience lower water stress as a result of projected changes in aridity when global warming is limited to 1.5°C, as compared to 2°C (medium confidence). {3.3.5, 3.4.2, 3.4.8, 3.5.5, Box 3.2, Box 3.5, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4}

B.5.5. Risks to global aggregated economic growth due to climate change impacts are projected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C by the end of this century

(medium confidence). This excludes the costs of mitigation, adaptation investments and the benefits of adaptation. Countries in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere subtropics are projected to experience the largest impacts on economic growth due to climate change should global warming increase from 1.5°C to 2°C (medium confidence). {3.5.2, 3.5.3}


B.5.6. Exposure to multiple and compound climate-related risks increases between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming, with greater proportions of people both so exposed and susceptible to poverty in Africa and Asia (high confidence). For global warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, risks across energy, food, and water sectors could overlap spatially and temporally, creating new and exacerbating current hazards, exposures, and vulnerabilities that could affect increasing numbers of people and regions (medium confidence). {Box 3.5, 3.3.1, 3.4.5.3, 3.4.5.6, 3.4.11, 3.5.4.9}

B.5.7. There are multiple lines of evidence that since AR5 the assessed levels of risk increased for four of the five Reasons for Concern (RFCs) for global warming to 2°C (high confidence). The risk transitions by degrees of global warming are now: from high to very high risk between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC1 (Unique and threatened systems) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 1.5°C for RFC2 (Extreme weather events) (medium confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC3 (Distribution of impacts) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2.5°C for RFC4 (Global aggregate impacts) (medium confidence); and from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 2.5°C for RFC5 (Large-scale singular events) (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.4.13; 3.5, 3.5.2}

B.6. Most adaptation needs will be lower for global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (high confidence). There are a wide range of adaptation options that can reduce the risks of climate change (high confidence). There are limits to adaptation and adaptive capacity for some human and natural systems at global warming of 1.5°C, with associated losses (medium confidence). The number and availability of adaptation options vary by sector (medium confidence). {Table 3.5, 4.3, 4.5, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5}

 

They are the experts.

So, obviously you believe they should be totally ignored!!

 

I've never seen any expertise out of them. What makes them experts? Who makes that determination?

And can any of them answer my question?

 

They have proven themselves in their areas of expertise through many years of education and careful analysis of their work by others experts throughout the entire world.

You can tell that your bathtub water got warmer by using a thermometer with the appropriate capability.

The heat didn't just "go away".

 

And how much would one have to pay for that thermometer, assuming it exists.

And how would you account for the rapid dissipation of the heat not only into the water but into the tub itself and the air surrounding it?

And where exactly would you have to put the thermometer to capture that heat input before it dissipated?

And how exactly would all of this be characterized so it makes any sense at all and convinces normal people that the temperature indeed went up?

Calling yourself an expert because you went to school and other self-defined experts agree with you doesn't mean much. In the end they'd have to actually use their expertise to accomplish something tangible before they could actually tout "expertise" and be able to convince skeptics. And they haven't. And neither have you.

 

How about looking into how climatological sciences study these various issues rather than talking about a bathtub.

Climate experts from around the world are in fundamental agreement on what is happening and why.

What do you think is necessary to convince those who deny the scientists of the world on this topic?

 

I've heard all about it professionally. Model everything and then pronounce your wisdom. Then denigrate the non-believers as rubes.

No acknowledgement of the shortcomings of models and the astronomical degrees of freedom involved.

EPA has modeled pollutants for decades. You can look it up. Last I looked they were on their 6th variant of their models and this was a decade ago.

I'll never forget the ensuing cluster***k when USA Today hired a passel of climate scientists to model pollution around schools- every school district in the country- using EPA's models and stationary source certification documents. The phones in our DC office lit up like Christmas trees when the European bosses woke up and found out in the paper that one of our plants must be killing local children. A plant in Baltimore (not ours) was killing my bosses kids in Alexandria (northern VA). A plant that had been shutdown 2 years before was supposedly killing my kids.

No, lying bastards like that can't be forgiven. And this climate change crap is worse. Those aren't even pollutants.

 

NASA, IPCC, NOAA, and the rest document their findings concerning sources of warming. They always include error bars, so you know how sure they are.

It's true that models are always being improved. That is exactly what we need. We can't simply ignore progress in understanding climate.

As for your example, I have NO idea what happened there, but suggesting that example as a reason to ignore climate scientists throughout the entire world hits me as totally unjustifiable.

Note the error bars on charts such as this one showing warming effect in watts per square meter of Earth.