World close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown - urgent and collective action is needed
World on brink of five ‘disastrous’ climate tipping points - Giant ice sheets, ocean currents and permafrost regions may already have passed point of irreversible change
Climate Tipping Points, Irreversibility - Consequences for Society, Environment and Economies = all the science
Collective action is needed by the world’s nations to avoid climate tipping points ... the world is coming “very close to irreversible changes … time is really running out very fast”. Emissions must fall by half by 2030 to meet the internationally agreed target of 1.5C of heating, but emissions are still rising.
The UN report found there was “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place” and that “woefully inadequate” progress on cutting carbon emissions means the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is a “rapid transformation of societies”. Current 2030 pledges for action, even if delivered in full, would mean a rise in global heating of 2.5C, a level that would condemn the world to catastrophic climate breakdown.
“It’s a really bleak moment, not only because emissions are still rising (so we’re not delivering on the Paris agreements), but we are also very close to irreversible tipping points.” Five dangerous climate tipping points may already have been passed.
“We are headed for a global catastrophe and for economy-destroying levels of global heating. The window for 1.5C is shutting. Droughts, floods, storms and wildfires are devastating lives and livelihoods across the globe. We need climate action on all fronts and we need it now.” The G20 nations, responsible for 80% of emissions, must lead the way.
Oil giants are making astronomical amounts of money, strengthening calls for windfall taxes to address the cost of living crisis and fund the clean energy transition. The oil and gas sector has gained $1tn/year in unearned profits for the last 50 years. “Net income for the world’s oil and gas producers is set to double in 2022 to an unprecedented $4tn, a huge $2tn windfall.”
Clean energy investments need to be $4tn/year by 2030 to hit net zero emissions by mid-century. "Why are we not obliging a highly profitable industry to clean up the mess caused by the products it sells?”
I understand the argument, but not when it's such an outlandish viewpoint that's not backed up by science. The BBC is being criticised lately for giving voices to and therefore amplifying these fringe viewpoints.
QT is obviously a flagship political news program and there isn't time to entertain such nonsense. Should they give voices to flat earthers, or people who say that God will look after us, or rants about over-population? No, of course not. But that's not to say that we can't have Theroux-style documentaries to explore these fringe ideas.
There is still plenty of arguments and controversy to be had, without outright denial of the problem in the first place.
Science is ever evolving. If it wasn't, we'd still know the world was flat and illness was caused by an imbalance in the humours.
No not at all, hence why I said it was off topic. Liberals just like to pick and choose when science matters that's all (not in relation to this)
No, as I said, science is ever evolving. The idea that we know everything now and that will never change is ridiculous. Scientists change their understanding based on empirical evidence; sticking to an idea just because it was the last thing you thought was right is stupid when it's shown to be wrong.
Oof ... a tiny box on p17 ! ?
This is an incredible graphic (oldie but goodie) ...
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1549009663378788355
And remember the summer of '76 ?
https://twitter.com/RussellEngland/status/1548711959503282185
I'm rather bemused by that first graphic.
I'm sure I've read that the temperature is rising about 0.1c a year, but that graphic seems to indicate it's only gone up by ~0.75c since ~1960.
Neither of these seems reasonable.
In the sixties we would get winter daytime temperatures down well below zero for substantial periods of time (snow lying for weeks in the South), every year, and normal summer highs of up to around 25c. Now, in the South, winter daytime temps do not stay near/below zero for any length of time, and we rarely get lying snow. Normal summer highs go up to the low thirties.
That seem like a rise of 5-10c, so why does the NASA graphic show only around .75c?
Or am I reading it wrong?
Yeah, the second one's not that great for showing any real change in the UK either. Both appear to me to be showing about a 4c increase over the average June temperature.
I'm sure I've read that the temperature is rising about 0.1c a year, but that graphic seems to indicate it's only gone up by ~0.75c since ~1960.
The visualization presents monthly global temperature anomalies between 1880-2021, relative to a base period of 1951-1980.
Currently: the average global temperature has increased by 1.1°C since 1880. Most warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of ~0.15°C per decade.
The climate activists (and the Paris agreement) want to limit the rise to 1.5C, but by many reports that might already be too late (due to stored heat and continued CO2 production).
Yeah, the second one's not that great for showing any real change in the UK either. Both appear to me to be showing about a 4c increase over the average June temperature.
Those maps address the naysayers talking about the Summer of '76 - clearly showing the UK in an unusual heat bubble, compared to 2022 (most of the globe with elevated temps).
