Government Told To Prepare For 2C Warming By 2050 (bbc.com) 66
The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050, independent climate advisers have said. BBC: The country was "not yet adapted" to worsening weather extremes already occurring at current levels of warming, "let alone" what was expected to come, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) wrote in a letter addressed to the government.
The committee said they would advise that the UK prepare for climate change beyond the long-term temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement. The letter came as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed that 2024 had seen a record rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is the gas mainly responsible for human-caused climate change and is released when fossil fuels are burnt, as well as other activities.
The committee said they would advise that the UK prepare for climate change beyond the long-term temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement. The letter came as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed that 2024 had seen a record rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is the gas mainly responsible for human-caused climate change and is released when fossil fuels are burnt, as well as other activities.
That's nice and all (Score:2)
But that's going to get in the way of burning more coal for this new AI datacenter.
Re:That's nice and all (Score:4, Informative)
Not in the UK. Our last coal power plant shut down last year (Ratcliffe-on-soar) and demolition work starts in June next year.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
MAGA types cherry-pick past forecasts to paint all forecasts as extreme. Being Evil With Data
Re: (Score:1)
MAGA types cherry-pick past forecasts to paint all forecasts as extreme.
Not even. They make up forecasts that never existed.
Being Evil With Data
Re: (Score:2)
Since the 80's? No. [Re:We Really Mean It, Thi...] (Score:4, Informative)
I've been hearing warnings of world-ending climate catastrophes "in 20 years", since the 80's.
Not from any actual atmospheric scientists, you haven't.
Basically, as long as I can remember. Are you really going to tell me that my direct experience was made up?
Correct. Your claim to "direct experience" is misremembered.
I gave citations in the other thread in which you made the same claim, but just as a recap, here's what the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1983: https://nap.nationalacademies.... [nationalacademies.org]
Re:We Really Mean It, This Time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Prediction:
X will occur if Y does not.
Observed outcome:
Y did not occur, but then neither did X.
Conclusion? The prediction was wrong.
Re:We Really Mean It, This Time. (Score:5, Informative)
Even back in 1990, when the models and computations were significantly less mature, the IPCC estimated ~0.3C of warming per decade in the 21st century. [wikipedia.org]
Are you capable of the mental arithmetic to project to 2050 from 1990?
Measured temperatures have demonstrated acceleration beyond those initial projections [climate.gov] (I'm surprised the current administration/ignorance cult hasn't deleted the NOAA page).
You're a toddler with oppositional defiance disorder, in a world governed by the hard rules of physics and chemistry. You and your doomsday ignorance cults are irredeemable, but those of us who are real engineers and scientists will try to pick up the pieces.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to bother talking about what smog is and isn't.
EV transition will take longer than many think (Score:3)
A common piece of EV FUD is "the grid can't handle it if everybody switches to a EV", which ignores that it's going to be a multi-decade transition.
For the US our vehicle fleet size is about ~284K [statista.com] are on the road
About ~16K [statista.com] light vehicles are sold per year
So it would take ~18 years to transition the fleet to all EVs if 100%of new vehicles sold were EVs. However, EV sales are only~10% [cnbc.com], and that's likely to drop next quarter due to sales being pulled forward by the end of the Federal Tax Credit, so we're proba
Re: Yeah we are past the point you idiot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you're must have quite a headaches because your tinfoil hat is too small.
Have you seen my wardrobe? (Score:1)
I think you're confusing me not being a psychopath with doom and gloom. Reality is things are getting worse and going to continue to get worse.
It's weird how old people are absolutely obsessed with how things were better when they were young but at the same time get upset when you point out that they let things get worse.
The phrase I think I'm looking for is double think. Two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. It explains why we are
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said that? [Re:We Really Mean It, This Time.] (Score:5, Informative)
First: Only 10 more years. (We're already supposed to be past this point fighting for life on a dying planet.)
Citation needed. Who said, "only 10 more years"... and, ten more years for what?
For reference, the very first IPCC report (1990) said nothing of the sort; they did give a few model predictions for 2030, which is to say 40 years in the future (of when the report came out), not "only 10". You might try reading it, if you want to know what actual scientists predicted. To help you, here's the first working group: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1... [www.ipcc.ch]
Then: Only 15 more years.
Fifteen more years for what? Citation needed. Who said that, when, and what did they say?
Now: ONLY 25 MORE YEARS!!!!
25 more years... for another 1 degree C of warming.
Re:Who said that? [Re:We Really Mean It, This Time (Score:4, Informative)
Most projections show that we blew past 1.5* a few years ago, and the perpetual growth delusionists still have our foot firmly holding the gas pedal to the floor in terms of emissions. Solar and wind power output is growing incredibly rapidly, but it's not going to happen in time to prevent absolute catastrophe by the end of the century. If Q snapped his fingers and all power was renewable tomorrow, just the warming that's going to happen due to past emissions will take us to or just past +2* by 2100.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason these arguments against factual data hold any water is that the IPCC compromised themselves while trying to convey urgency. Once you lie, you will always be labelled a liar, even when producing incontrovertible facts. They made a huge mistake, 20ish years ago (?) and now, the whole planet pays. (don't worry, the whole planet would/will be paying anyways as nobody who has the ability to change anything has been paying attention,)
Re: (Score:2)
This started in the 70's, not in 1990.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not familiar with the 10 year claim, but I do recall that 20 year claims were being made before 1990.
Sorry, your recollection is playing tricks on you. The predictions before 1990 were more "we will be able to detect warming in twenty years." For reference, here is the 1983 National Academy of Sciences report "Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee https://doi.org/10.17226/18714 [doi.org]
I challenge you to find a prediction of any sort of disaster in the next 20 years in that report.
This started in the 70's, not in 1990.
What started in the 70s??? The '70s were only a few years after Manabe and Wetherald's breakthrough 1967
Re: (Score:3)
For a recent example, scientists didn't say in 2019 that the world would end in 12 years. AOC said that. But that still mea
Yes, you should pay attention to scientists (Score:2)
Okay, so you seem to think that the only messaging about this came from respectable scientists.
This site is news for nerds. Yes, nerds ought to be paying attention to what scientists say, not trying to find the craziest of the crazies and then say "science is a fraud! They predicted the end of the world and it didn't happen!"
If you dig deep enough, you can find somebody who has predicted the world ending pretty much any date you like. Remember how the Mayan calendar said the world was ending in 2012? Here's ten more [britannica.com], and here's a bunch more [wikipedia.org].
It didn't. Environmentalists with little regard for truth and a belief in ends justifying means were (and still are) the primary messengers.
The only thing even close to an actual citation you give is
Re: We Really Mean It, This Time. (Score:1)
AMOC halt would totally (Score:1)
...screw the UK. Even Eskimos wouldn't visit.
2C don't sound impressive (Score:2)
You probably need to simulate the climate and come up with individual numbers and all that to sell it well.
Ideally (and a bit counterintuitively), you probably would need some sort of application that explain what will happen on a region you test, so people that only care about themselves can see what will happen to them specifically.
No one care about polar bears for more than 5 minutes, but a "due all the chain reactions, you're 20C warmer than it would normally" is more convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and FWIW, 2C is probably an underestimate, like most of the forecasts. The official forecasters never want to sound too extreme.
OTOH, it still depends on what we (as a world civilization) do. So far we've kept raising our CO2 discharges, but we *could* reverse that.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
But i mean more like the headlines themselves, if someone reads "2C warmer", sounds like a nothingburger, when in reality there are all the pretty horrible domino effects.
These need better marketing than annoying and condescending rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2C goal is the trajectory we're currently missing after we're already past the original 1.5C goal. Currently it is more looking like the industry won't change (and the governments won't force it) until we hit 3C or more.
Re: (Score:3)
You probably need to simulate the climate and come up with individual numbers and all that to sell it well. Ideally (and a bit counterintuitively), you probably would need some sort of application that explain what will happen on a region you test, so people that only care about themselves can see what will happen to them specifically.
Unfortunately, the smaller region you are predicting, the harder it is. It's (comparatively) easy to predict a global average; much much more difficult (and more uncertain) to predict fine details.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, i know.
We'll likely see worse then 2C eventually (Score:2)
As a planet (the only way it makes sense to look at this) we're only now getting close to halting our yearly increase in total emissions. We haven't even begun the process of actually reducing this massive number. Meanwhile there are all sorts of things we don't even know how to decarbonize.
Best case scenario in my mind is that we're 30-50 years away from net zero. I'm in my mid 40's now, given that we already seem to be getting close to the 1.5C benchmark I fully expect a 3C total increase before I die.
In other news (Score:2)
But nuclear is too slow (Score:2, Interesting)
Just compare my states carbon output - https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/12mo/monthly [electricitymaps.com]
With that of France - https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/12mo/monthly [electricitymaps.com]
France is at 19 g CO2 per kWh compared most of California at 242 g CO2 per kWh.
Clearly nuclear is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly we don't have the know how. I believe it. America only has a modicum of educated people compared to places like Asia and Europe. And barely anyone travels internationally in America so they think America is the best place and that everything we do is done in the best way possible. The schools are poorly funded, and college is prohibitively expensive. Zero companies want to actually train people because they are assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be worse. (Score:2)
If it was in Fahrenheit it would a 3.6 degrees of warming, so another reason to switch to the Metric System: it'll be cooler. :-)
Re:medieval warming (Score:5, Informative)
The Medieval Warm Period was NOT a global phenomenon. This is why we should care. And currently there Billions of people that live in equatoral zones that will become uninhabitable resulting in massive migrations, social upheaval, mass misery and as always poverty.
Re:medieval warming (Score:5, Informative)
The Medieval Warm Period was NOT a global phenomenon.
Right. Globally, it was not noticibly different in temperature.
But also, we have already surpassed the European Medieval Warm Period temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to (Score:2)
Thanks to the brilliant Climate Regulation changes by Trump, this will not happen. he assures us. How do we know ? Climate Stats where eliminated, that means the Average Temp will never change. /s
Thanks Trump
Re: (Score:2)
It can't get warmer if there is no thermometer to read.
Now why should the US care? (Score:2)
Trump will be gone by that time and that is what dictates the US's concern horizon. /s
obligatory XKCD (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Or... (Score:2)
the melting arctic and Greenland ice pack screws up the Atlantic conveyor current and Britain and Scandinavia have a new ice age.
Made up numbers (Score:2)
And will the Met Office be measuring this with Class 1 instruments or will they carry on using vast numbers of Class 4 or Class 5 weather stations, and the ones they make up?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The satellites in orbit are reliant on the ground stations to calibrate their sensors. If the ground stations are off because they were not constructed properly then that can pollute the temperature data from satellites for large portions of the world. We are seeing a lot of "garbage in, garbage out" on temperature data because ground weather stations have not been properly constructed and maintained.
I can recall my sister, a chemist, talking about something as simple as calibrating a common mercury therm
Who's old enough to remember? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I do. Democratisation of smartphones is killing us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)