Climate Change (Global Warming) 🥶🌍🌞

Markduc said:
The professional advice is Always follow the experts

View attachment 93310
Click to expand...
Seen this post many times and itt pretty much sums it up. Strange that certian others have seen it, ignored it, yet still go on to claim that one side has no academic credibility so should be ignored yet the other with less than no academic credibility can dictate how we should live...
Madness. Guess the heat yas got to em..
 
Barry Hell said:
More proof from trusted sources :ROFLMAO:

www.clubofrome.org

The science is clear: we need net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 - Club of Rome

05 December 2023 -
www.clubofrome.org www.clubofrome.org
Click to expand...

The text for those who are too foolish and dogmatic to click on the link:

05 December 2023 – In response to the debate on whether there is indeed a scientific case for the phase out of fossil fuel energy, world renowned climate scientists have worked around the clock to come together with a unified statement.

The link between climate science and fossil fuel phase out is unequivocal. The Club of Rome has worked in partnership with Future Earth and World Climate Research Program to convene a statement from scientists in response to comments regarding fossil fuel phaseout pathways.

STATEMENT​

For all intents and purposes, moving towards the phase-out of fossil fuel combustion is necessary to keep the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement within reach. Deploying carbon dioxide removal (CDR) at scale, while being judicious about its limitations and trade-offs, will also be necessary to complement the phase out of fossil fuels, as there will be some residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors.

As assessed by the IPCC, reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is required to stand a chance of holding global warming to 1.5°C this century. Net zero means that all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are balanced by anthropogenic carbon dioxide removals. Scenarios consistent with this goal require a complete phase-out of coal by 2050 and rapid phase-down of oil and gas (halved every decade). After 2050 the world needs to rapidly move into net negative emissions, particularly after a number of decades of 1.5°C overshoot.

The most recent assessments of pathways to limit warming at 1.5°C show that by 2050 all unabated use of coal needs to be completely phased-out, while oil and unabated gas need to be phased down by 60-90%.1 To have a 50% chance of holding the global temperature increase to 1.5°C, we can only emit another 275 Gt of carbon dioxide.2 At current emissions rates, we will have used up this budget in just 7 years. Over its lifetime, the existing infrastructure for the extraction and use of fossil fuels would emit more than the world’s remaining carbon budget. New planned infrastructure and exploration for new fossil fuel reserves would exceed this budget many times over.3

All modelling scenarios that limit warming to 1.5°C – with or without a temporary temperature overshoot – rely on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in order to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and net negative emissions from 2050 onwards. Current CDR methods amount to about 5% of fossil fuel emissions and rely almost entirely on using nature to enhance carbon storage, but the permanence and scale-up potential of these nature-based CDR methods are uncertain as they are vulnerable to multiple threats including climate change (e.g. due to increases in extremes such as droughts or wildfires). There are also significant trade-offs with food and water security and the protection of biodiversity.

Novel, technology-based, CDR methods currently provide just 0.1% of CDR from the atmosphere4 (this includes direct air capture and storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage). Novel CDR is just now moving from pilot experiments into its scaling phase and while theoretically promising there is no evidence yet that these methods can be deployed at the scale needed. Nor do we know whether these CDR methods will be enough to remove even the difficult-to-abate emissions in a timely manner.

Given the certainty about the shrinking carbon budget, and the overwhelming uncertainty about the scalability of CDR, the only certain way to curb global warming and reach net zero is to reduce fossil fuel emissions to the unavoidable minimum level – and concurrently invest in CDR to offset the remaining amount of residual fossil fuel emissions. This residual needs to be kept as low as possible in view of the uncertainties of scale, storage timescale, and trade-offs associated with CDR.

The natural carbon sinks beyond human activity are not included in the net zero equation. The remaining carbon budget already factors in the continued performance of natural land and ocean carbon sinks to remove a significant fraction of anthropogenic emissions (also accounting for their declining efficiency in a warmer world).

The science is clear: there is no room for ambiguity on the required action for achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

WRITING TEAM:​

Pierre Friedlingstein, University of Exeter, UK
Sophie Hebden, Future Earth, Sweden and European Space Agency, UK
Daniel Ospina, Future Earth, Sweden
Julia Pongratz, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Germany
Johan Rockström, PIK, Germany
Detlef Stammer, Universität Hamburg, Germany
 
Everclear said:
The Club of Rome has worked in partnership with Future Earth and World Climate Research Program to convene a statement from scientists in response to comments regarding fossil fuel phaseout pathways

WRITING TEAM:​

Pierre Friedlingstein, University of Exeter, UK
Sophie Hebden, Future Earth, Sweden and European Space Agency, UK
Daniel Ospina, Future Earth, Sweden
Julia Pongratz, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Germany
Johan Rockström, PIK, Germany
Detlef Stammer, Universität Hamburg, Germany
Click to expand...
Depends how you cut it I guess :unsure:
 
Barry Hell said:
Depends how you cut it I guess :unsure:
Click to expand...
Oh :unsure:

1702391237933.webp
 
Go and tell China.

The Club of Rome (and in particular Maurice Strong) are the body responsible for coming up with the climate as a global threat and means of control.
 

Global climate deal calls for ending the fossil fuel era​


DUBAI — Breaking a deadlock that had hindered climate talks for three decades, nations Wednesday struck a deal that calls for tackling the root cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels.

The final agreement at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Dubai, known as COP28, explicitly recommends “transitioning away from fossil fuels” such as oil, gas and coal that are dangerously heating Earth.

That pledge — an obvious step, given the science — is nonetheless a breakthrough for the U.N. climate talks, which require consensus on final agreement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/12/13/cop28-fossil-fuels-climate-deal/
 
Everclear said:

Global climate deal calls for ending the fossil fuel era​


DUBAI — Breaking a deadlock that had hindered climate talks for three decades, nations Wednesday struck a deal that calls for tackling the root cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels.

The final agreement at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Dubai, known as COP28, explicitly recommends “transitioning away from fossil fuels” such as oil, gas and coal that are dangerously heating Earth.

That pledge — an obvious step, given the science — is nonetheless a breakthrough for the U.N. climate talks, which require consensus on final agreement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/12/13/cop28-fossil-fuels-climate-deal/
Click to expand...
What a load of balderdash!
 
Everclear said:

Global climate deal calls for ending the fossil fuel era​


DUBAI — Breaking a deadlock that had hindered climate talks for three decades, nations Wednesday struck a deal that calls for tackling the root cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels.

The final agreement at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Dubai, known as COP28, explicitly recommends “transitioning away from fossil fuels” such as oil, gas and coal that are dangerously heating Earth.

That pledge — an obvious step, given the science — is nonetheless a breakthrough for the U.N. climate talks, which require consensus on final agreement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/12/13/cop28-fossil-fuels-climate-deal/
Click to expand...
How will they fly the private jets to the next cop when they haven’t any fuel :unsure:
not to smart definitely haven’t thought it through
 
Just seen a climate dick head on the TV saying when we are at net zero it will take hundreds of years to peak and reduce as all the damage has been man made over a short 100 years :ROFLMAO: so how will it keep going up if we reach net zero then dick head 🤷‍♂️ Eversneer will believe him though 🤪
 
German scientist is raising serious questions as to whether government data-keepers have been tampering with scientific data to conjure up warming trends where none exist.

“It is important to understand whether CO2 truly causes climate change,” said Professor Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, “We rely entirely on simulation models. Reality looks very different from simulations.”


From: https://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/german-scientist-researchers-fiddling-with-temperature-data/
 
Dox said:
German scientist is raising serious questions as to whether government data-keepers have been tampering with scientific data to conjure up warming trends where none exist.

“It is important to understand whether CO2 truly causes climate change,” said Professor Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, “We rely entirely on simulation models. Reality looks very different from simulations.”


From: https://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/german-scientist-researchers-fiddling-with-temperature-data/
Click to expand...
Modeling is guessing.. I had a argument with a trinity prof during covid he's a family friend and a real nice guy.. His best mate is Luke o Neil which was one of our biggest covid scare mongers.. His scare mongering had absolutely nothing to do with the 26 million he earned from selling a virus vaccine research company set up by trinity College his 26 million was his 10%... Anyway I kept asking this guy Peter what the fuck is modeling Excatly?? he didn't really answer my question but after badgering him over and over for an answer he finally admitted it's their best guess.. I then asked but the guess so far hasn't been remotely closev.. He laughed and said that is the problem with modeling it's just guessing 🙈
 
The skitz said:
Modeling is guessing.. I had a argument with a trinity prof during covid he's a family friend and a real nice guy.. His best mate is Luke o Neil which was one of our biggest covid scare mongers.. His scare mongering had absolutely nothing to do with the 26 million he earned from selling a virus vaccine research company set up by trinity College his 26 million was his 10%... Anyway I kept asking this guy Peter what the fuck is modeling Excatly?? he didn't really answer my question but after badgering him over and over for an answer he finally admitted it's their best guess.. I then asked but the guess so far hasn't been remotely closev.. He laughed and said that is the problem with modeling it's just guessing 🙈
Click to expand...

That's why governments like it...because they can get whatever result they want - depends on what figures are fed into the model, and every variable thereafter.

Similar with most areas of science and medicine; its either based on modelling, or assumptions that previous conclusions were correct. The biggest problem is, that when those previous conclusions are proven to be wrong, the doctors / (in pay) scientists don't alter their output, instead sticking to 'the guidelines'.
 
Dox said:
That's why governments like it...because they can get whatever result they want - depends on what figures are fed into the model, and every variable thereafter.

Similar with most areas of science and medicine; its either based on modelling, or assumptions that previous conclusions were correct. The biggest problem is, that when those previous conclusions are proven to be wrong, the doctors / (in pay) scientists don't alter their output, instead sticking to 'the guidelines'.
Click to expand...

Thought this would be appropriate given the intellectual level of the above posts, maybe even Dox, Exi the Gay, Mark the Ducky (Exi's crush) etc etc may just
get it ..... well I can only try.


.
curve.webp
 
Dox said:
That's why governments like it...because they can get whatever result they want - depends on what figures are fed into the model, and every variable thereafter.

Similar with most areas of science and medicine; its either based on modelling, or assumptions that previous conclusions were correct. The biggest problem is, that when those previous conclusions are proven to be wrong, the doctors / (in pay) scientists don't alter their output, instead sticking to 'the guidelines'.
Click to expand...
Scientist you say... 26 million to this genius
Screenshot_20231214-113759.webp
 
I've been thinking researching (Google) about CO2 levels over the last 2000 years.
What I cannot find is any real discussion on.

1. IS CO2 Levels a cause or just an indicator of average world temperature change?
2. How do we know what levels cause what temperature change, given that water vapour (clouds) are the very best at trapping heat?
 
AirCon said:
I've been thinking researching (Google) about CO2 levels over the last 2000 years.
What I cannot find is any real discussion on.

1. IS CO2 Levels a cause or just an indicator of average world temperature change?
2. How do we know what levels cause what temperature change, given that water vapour (clouds) are the very best at trapping heat?
Click to expand...
Cos the models tell us 🤣 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dox
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom