The Brisbane Times reports:
Humans have already released half the total carbon dioxide emissions permissible before the planet is at risk of warming to dangerous levels, a draft United Nations scientific assessment says.
The final draft of a major assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that keeping warming to 2 degrees – regarded as a guard-rail against the worst impacts of climate change – will require deep global emissions cuts in coming decades.
Under the future emissions scenarios considered by the IPCC, only the most stringent would keep the world within the remaining CO2 allowance for 2 degrees. It would mean an average global emission cut of 50 per cent by mid-century on 1990 levels, and possibly require removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2100.
What a great idea – remove CO2 from the atmosphere. At half the current level, we can no longer feed everyone due to stunted plant growth. At a third of the current level, life on earth as we know it ceases to exist. No plants, no animals that rely on plants for food. No fish in the sea – we’ve eaten them all because there’s nothing else to eat, and their food supply has also stopped growing. What idiot wrote this?
I don’t think the one-child policy has much to do with population control; China’s rulers aren’t thinking that far ahead. What it’s about is, simply, fewer “useless mouths”.
No doubt they are considering mass genocides as a viable options.
Warm is good, noting Earth’s past. Cold is very bad for individual humans. Very separately – CO2 is also good, within the ranges we are experiencing. Stop the insanity and solve a real problem – if you can, “warmists.”
To have a noticeable effect, we would have to remove _trillions_ (10^12) of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. There are much cheaper ways to cool the Earth, for example adding aerosols to jet fuel.
Past the point of no return? We’ve passed it several times. Perhaps we should paraphrase Mark Twain: reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated.
The Bedwetters are really losing the plot now. whistle-blowers are leaking the more extreme remarks about, “Hiding the (temperature) Decline” at an accelerating rate which would have been unheard of 6 years ago. Such schemes as making scientists affirm a committment to the unproven hypothesis of ocean warming underline the desperation of the New World Order. Activists are becoming criminal in the attempt to maintain their delusions.
10-4, GHo5T. I took geography of the USSR in college from an ex-USAF intel analyst. He called Russia at the time (mid-70’s) a nation of old maids. Pretty apt. But if you go back and look at the demographics of Russia during the 20th century, you’ll see a similar imbalance in the male-female population after WW I so Russia went through two catastrophic hits to it’s population which created all sorts of problems. By the way, today’s male life expectancy in Russia is ~60 years versus ~73 years for females. Talk about horrific.
Slight problem there doc! If you tried to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, more would be released by the oceans, and you would have to stop everyone breathing. Say nothing of killing off all vegetation, which means killing off all life, but then that’s what the greens want.
Horrific truth of the day. Historically there’s only one sure-fire method of significantly reducing the male portion of a population in a short amount of time. In post WWII Russia “the ratio of men to women in the 20-29 age group declined from .91 to .65 between 1941 and 1946.” http://web.williams.edu/Economics/faculty/brainerd-rfwomen.pdf
Maybe China can come up with a better way.
“Humans have already released half the total carbon dioxide emissions permissible before the planet is at risk of warming to dangerous levels, a draft United Nations scientific assessment says.” Yeah, marque2, the leading alarmist voices have said we’re already doomed or that we’ll be doomed by next week or maybe it’s the end of the century or…
As for predicting the climate/weather effects of CO2 rising to, say, 600ppm — heck, the models have failed up to now and we should figure their projections are as useful to 2100 as they’ve been to 2010.
Reality Check is also right: “permissible”? Explain that term, alarmists, and we’ll discuss it.
Correct, marque2. However, in the short term it’s even worse. There is terrible imbalance of the sexes now with the desire of the Chinese parents for a son. There are ~27 million more men in the 15-64 age demographic than women and a further ~18 million coming along in the 0-14 age demographic. What is China going to do with the excess of males which will never have a chance to marry? Sounds like a recipe for instability to me.
“permissable”????? Who’s permission are we talking about? God? The IPCC? Jim Hansen? Assuming it’s not God (and I think we would have heard that announcement), who appointed the IPCC or Hansen as God? What a bunch of pompous, arrogant idiots.
China has its own problems. It really bought into population control and because of the one child policy the population is about to collapse. Not much more manufacturing will be happening in China in a few years. The whole country will be retiring.
Wait a minute, I thought 2 years ago we reached the point of no return. Now we are only half way there, and when we get there there is a solution?
Am I being bamboozled (again)?
So, if the global temperature increases 2°C all is peachy keen, but 2.1°C and we have a climate disaster? We’ve been seeing temperature “increases” that are not statistically different from 0 and we really need to worry? I also liked the part about China’s committment to GHG reductions. I’m sure they are strongly committed to the west committing economic suicide while they continue to grow.
Didn’t those folks just get voted out rather resoundingly?
I realize that I’m not a climatologist (I’m just a guy with a Doctorate in a scientific discipline), but wouldn’t removing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere be kind of hard on green plants? I have to assume that the IPCC wizards of smart aren’t actually considering removing all of the CO2, as nothing in the article states that explicitly.