Emissions Need To Be Halved To Avoid 3C Warming

Emissions need to be halved by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius but temperatures are on track to reach double that by the end of the century even if countries’ current plans are fully implemented, research by scientists shows.A group of European researchers, Climate Action Tracker, tracks countries’ progress toward the globally agreed aim of limiting warming to well below 2C and a more ambitious target of 1.5C. Public concerns about climate change are growing and have led to protests around the world. However, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were at a record high last year and new renewable power capacity has stalled after years of strong growth. At the same time, methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, has risen in recent years due to oil and gas production, including fracking. An assessment of 32 nations’ climate plans by Climate Action Tracker shows that only two governments’ plans - Morocco and the Gambia - are enough to meet the 1.5C limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something in the air...😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tic-tac... it's time to talk about the change humanity needs to address these and other environmental challenges, which have placed our planet in imminent peril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, technology. But, more simple way is to plant billions of trees and save the planet... Forests can stop runaway global heating, encourage rainfall, guarantee clean water, reduce air pollution, provide livelihoods, reserves for rare wildlife, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions....

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, damirUSBiH said:

Just 25 companies are responsible for 50% of the world's atmospheric pollution over the last 30 years?! Frustrating, sick, unacceptable..

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

You know who's also responsible for 100%? Consumers, as a loop and chain...

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A global metldown of economics and politics....
not surprising - money talks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, rainman said:

A global metldown of economics and politics....
not surprising - money talks

Are you suggesting that we continue on as usual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rainman said:

A global metldown of economics and politics....
not surprising - money talks

I agree.  We know and have known for a very long time. But, who cared? Only a few who did speak up but money spoke the loudest and still does. The telling sentence in this article is " highlight the role companies and their investors could play in tackling climate change. " 
Could but won't as long as pollution lines their wallet.. Again, money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are very arrogant if we think that we can handcuff Mother Nature to ANY limit on ANYTHING!

How was the 1.5 to 2.0 degrees C limit decided upon?

We seem to blame the entirety of the as yet unconfirmed issue of climate change on the industrialized nations and expect them to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (as per the Paris Accord) to assist those who are deemed 'at risk' in the developing countries.

This totally ignores the fact that the developing countries have ALL benefited from the advances in the industrialized nations - since the industrial revolution!

Furthermore, many of these 'at risk' third world countries have had billions of dollars of aid pumped in to them for decades....where has it gone and what measurable difference has it made?

So now we want to give them billions more to fight climate change, do we really expect the money to go towards that issue.

Refer to the definition of insanity!

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pinto said:

Emissions need to be halved by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius but temperatures are on track to reach double that by the end of the century even if countries’ current plans are fully implemented, research by scientists shows.A group of European researchers, Climate Action Tracker, tracks countries’ progress toward the globally agreed aim of limiting warming to well below 2C and a more ambitious target of 1.5C. Public concerns about climate change are growing and have led to protests around the world. However, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were at a record high last year and new renewable power capacity has stalled after years of strong growth. At the same time, methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, has risen in recent years due to oil and gas production, including fracking. An assessment of 32 nations’ climate plans by Climate Action Tracker shows that only two governments’ plans - Morocco and the Gambia - are enough to meet the 1.5C limit.

Meanwhile based in reality: Ice cores from Antartica show that the world was hotter 1000 years ago than it is today. https://climateaudit.org/2019/02/01/pages2k-2017-antarctic-proxies/#more-24072

And no, there is no ice core data from Antatrica for last 60 years as explained in the link due to diurnal temp fluctuations.  Why the first ~15m of every bore hole ice are thrown out and anyone claiming ice core data after 1960 is lying out their arse(Cough IPCC AR4 and AR5). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This totally ignores the fact that the developing countries have ALL benefited from the advances in the industrialized nations - since the industrial revolution!

That's the funniest sentence I have read since being at this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

Meanwhile based in reality: Ice cores from Antartica show that the world was hotter 1000 years ago than it is today. https://climateaudit.org/2019/02/01/pages2k-2017-antarctic-proxies/#more-24072

And no, there is no ice core data from Antatrica for last 60 years as explained in the link due to diurnal temp fluctuations.  Why the first ~15m of every bore hole ice are thrown out and anyone claiming ice core data after 1960 is lying out their arse(Cough IPCC AR4 and AR5). 

Interesting. So on one hand you deride the IPCC data which is from many sampling points across the globe as an indicator of where global temperatures are going but one set of 1000 year old ice cores from Antarctica can indicate the entire world was warmer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Meanwhile based in reality: Ice cores from Antartica show that the world was hotter 1000 years ago than it is today. https://climateaudit.org/2019/02/01/pages2k-2017-antarctic-proxies/#more-24072

It shows temperatures for Antarctica alone.  Just as this shows temperatures for the Arctic. 

See Figure S5 here for a global perspective.  Care needs to be exercised when assuming paleoclimate records give just one answer.

Image result for temperature reconstruction for the past 2000 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Red said:

That's the funniest sentence I have read since being at this site.

So Red, are you insinuating that developing nations have not received any benefit from advances made in technology, industry or transportation?

Could you please explain why you find that sentence 'funny'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Could you please explain why you find that sentence 'funny'?

Go to developing nations and see for yourself.  I have and I continue to.

If these benefits you claim are so profound then there's a heck of a lot of explaining to do as to why, after several centuries of an industrial revolution, half the world's population still lives on less than $20 a week.  Here are some other facts that might interest you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I have traveled extensively, predominately in Africa and Asia, over the past 30 years in the oil business. Much of this was 'off the beaten path'. So I do not need to go "see for yourself"

Your lead sentence is very arrogant and assumes that nobody else has your level of experience.

But again, anyone can claim anything on a forum such as this and nobody can question their claims.

That said, ports have sprung up all over Africa and Asia, everywhere I go I see some form of a internal combustion engine either powering a vehicle, water pump, manufacturing process, etc.... Even the poorest countries seem to have an international airport and at least a primitive electrical grid. Kurdistan has a relatively new international airport. The list goes on and on.

Have they benefited as much as say North America or Europe? Obviously not. Have they benefited? Obviously.

Money and resources have been pumped into many of these countries for years, with no benefit. Lack of effective government and corruption is likely the root cause.

Do you honestly think pumping even more money will make a difference.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Your lead sentence is very arrogant and assumes that nobody else has your level of experience.

You assume too much and are not good with "evidence".  Your tenuous points are now along the lines that backwaters have some trinkets from this incredible advancement.

Instead, the developed world actively denies some developing nations what they need to progress.  And where there are some gains it's due to the developed world pillaging their resources, so they can buy a few trinkets.

Ever wondered why China's Belt and Road strategy was being embraced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not provide evidence or tenuous points. I provided examples, nothing more, nothing less.

I do not consider port facilities, railroads, bridges, airports, paved roads, etc... to be trinkets.

Once again you are off topic. These countries have benefited, how or why that occurred was not the issue

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article that was included in the original post is over a year old...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This totally ignores the fact that the developing countries have ALL benefited from the advances in the industrialized nations - since the industrial revolution!

This is just another of your rubbish claims.  There has be some "progress," and it has been very slow.  By your reckoning, maybe even around 200 years late for the little that has occurred. 

I could comment on what you did say that was almost on topic, but there is no evidence from you that you understand climate science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you attempt to highjack the narrative. I was discussing the dissemination of the benefits derived from technological innovation and industrialization from the developed world to the developing world. You have now attempted to turn the discussion back to climate science.

They may be interrelated, but I was not discussing climate science. That said, you are, once again, off topic.

Perhaps you should start a new discussion connecting the topics.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Interesting. So on one hand you deride the IPCC data which is from many sampling points across the globe as an indicator of where global temperatures are going but one set of 1000 year old ice cores from Antarctica can indicate the entire world was warmer? 

You didn't read the link did you?  😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe you should read what you have previously written!

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You have now attempted to turn the discussion back to climate science.

14 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

We are very arrogant if we think that we can handcuff Mother Nature to ANY limit on ANYTHING!

How was the 1.5 to 2.0 degrees C limit decided upon?

 

If you raise an issue in a thread, then at least work out that it was YOU and not me introducing it.

Little wonder I laugh at your expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wastral said:

You didn't read the link did you?  😜

He did, but maybe you overlooked that Antarctica is not representative of global climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites