IPCC special report - Global Warming of 1.5 °C

[Daruwind]

Meh! Uninhabitable middle east wouldn't be such a bad thing.
How about Paradise in Siberia !?

Yeah, think so....probably ask new arabic overlords what they think of former russian siberia Oh you have already such large muslim "minority" that even without any imigration.... wait, i think i read the china is quietly lumberjacking your whole siberia for free.

Anyway, back on topic - Uninhabitable Middle east, India, Indonesia, even part of Africa probably all of this means a lot homeless people...a LOT.

[Morifea]

Jupp, THAT will be a migrant crisis... not some hundred People waiting at the Mexican Border.

The Problem with Siberia is the Methan in the permafrost ground.... when this ground thaws, the methan will be released.
Methan has a bigger inmpact on global warming that CO2.

[Love Mountain]

It would take decades if not centuries to make the Middle East uninhabitable. Same with any Pacific countries. The actual imminent issue is the population boom in Middle Eastern countries, many of whom do not have adequate water supplies. Combine that with the effect of Global Warming on water supplies like Rivers, Glaciers, ground water, etc, and many of these countries are going to have a very difficult time. Qatar and Kuwait have dreams of becoming the water suppliers of the Middle East through desalination. That's just not feasible with current technology and power generation as far as I'm aware. I may be wrong, technology advances every day after all. Having said that, the actual water needs of human beings are fairly low. Growing food is what really takes the most water and Middle Eastern countries can simply import that.

There are very negative consequences to global warming, as has been reiterated many times, but we can certainly live with them and adapt. The best thing we can do, is create technology that makes environmentalism both feasible and economically desirable.

[Vanoi]

Desalination is very possible. Saudi Arabia is currently building the world's largest desalination plant and the Israelis have been use desalination for years.

I think cost is the biggest problem but that could be offset with more efficient practices and better technology.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I''m no expert, but energy should with solar energy no problem there.

[NorseThing]

I am also no expert, but it seems the mad dash to end nuclear power generation programs as has happened in Germany is way more making the problem worse instead of better. Solar and wind generation may help, but nuclear not in the solution set makes it not workable unless time and money is successful on new engineering solutions. If we are truly concerned with making this work in the short run, then existing nuclear technology needs to be a part of the solution set.

[Daruwind]

I´m also not expert, but working with nuclear science. There are future generation and possible new way how to build nuclear power plant. Exotic fuels, different technology...Lithium, Thorium, plants with almost no radioactive waste...All these have very same problem. There are not tested and they would require tons of money to catch all bugs and make efficient enough. That´s the main problem even with solar panels, electric cars,.....Classic cars and coal power plans were constantly improved for century to the point of maximum efficiency. You cannot made the same progress with anything in 5 years, it takes time and lot of money and for nuclear power plants it means A LOT of money. And here comes politics and economics into play. You can harldy get money for nuclear power plant..for working one with tested technology but getting 10x more money for untested tech with prospect of 10-20 years of possible tinkering and bug catching? And often even if you solve ecology problem in one area, you just move problem into next one. Like mining enough Lithium for power cells and processing it and what about recyclation of solar panels?

[Stario]

The Problem with Siberia is the Methan in the permafrost ground.... when this ground thaws, the methan will be released.
Methan has a bigger inmpact on global warming that CO2.

The oceans & plants will absorb much of the methane.

Also, CO2 absorption at methane sources is significantly greater than areas without methane seepage due to photosynthetic algaea. We have observed photosynthetic algae are much more active over the methane sources & at the same time absorb more C02 than non-methane areas. The methane-rich waters also tend to be nutrient-rich, promote further growth of more algae.

If what we have thus far observed occurs more broadly around the world, it could mean that methane seeps have a net cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect.

[Love Mountain]

Desalination is very possible. Saudi Arabia is currently building the world's largest desalination plant and the Israelis have been use desalination for years.

I think cost is the biggest problem but that could be offset with more efficient practices and better technology.

Maybe it is. Reading this article gives me some figures to work with. So the Sotek plant, which is state of the art, costs 500$ million, supplies 20 percent of Israeli households, let's say 1.5 million people (basing this off of Israel's rough population of 8-9 million people). It sells this water at 58 cents per 1000 liters. The population of MENA, probably the region with the greatest water issues, is expected to increase from 411 million today, to 580+ million in 2050.

Now props to Israel for aggressively tackling their water security, with desalination supplying 40% of their water supply. That's pretty amazing. Israel is a very rich country though, and while many MENA countries are rich, not all of them are. To supply 150+ million people, you'd need, to use some very rudimentary/inaccurate math here, 500$ million * (150million/1.5million), or 50$ billion. Now obviously these are bad numbers, innovation, cost over-runs, economies of scale, etc all drastically change these numbers. I think it is safe to say that to adequately secure the water source for MENA's urban populations you'd need billions upon billions of dollars. This is especially true for downstream countries who want to maintain their water security. The Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia which is threatening to devastate Egypt's farmlands is one example of how upstream nations can threaten downstream nations, and this is before we calculate the effects of climate change and population growth.

Now if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia want to export desalinated water... They have to build pipeline infrastructure, they have to actually meet their own water needs first, etc. I mean, I'm just skeptical that it could be done. It'll require a lot of investment. I don't see Kuwait and Saudi Arabia doing that. I certainly agree that desalination is feasible in general, and can increase water security for many MENA countries, but I think many will be unable to do so or have no funds for doing that. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can probably secure their own water needs, but a country like Egypt and Iraq for example, are probably out of luck, especially considering their recent history with political instability and the fact that they do not have as many extra resources as rich Arab oil nations like S.A. and U.A.E.

I am also no expert, but it seems the mad dash to end nuclear power generation programs as has happened in Germany is way more making the problem worse instead of better. Solar and wind generation may help, but nuclear not in the solution set makes it not workable unless time and money is successful on new engineering solutions. If we are truly concerned with making this work in the short run, then existing nuclear technology needs to be a part of the solution set.

I am also very disappointed as well. Nuclear energy should be the spearhead of climate change.

I´m also not expert, but working with nuclear science. There are future generation and possible new way how to build nuclear power plant. Exotic fuels, different technology...Lithium, Thorium, plants with almost no radioactive waste...All these have very same problem. There are not tested and they would require tons of money to catch all bugs and make efficient enough. That´s the main problem even with solar panels, electric cars,.....Classic cars and coal power plans were constantly improved for century to the point of maximum efficiency. You cannot made the same progress with anything in 5 years, it takes time and lot of money and for nuclear power plants it means A LOT of money. And here comes politics and economics into play. You can harldy get money for nuclear power plant..for working one with tested technology but getting 10x more money for untested tech with prospect of 10-20 years of possible tinkering and bug catching? And often even if you solve ecology problem in one area, you just move problem into next one. Like mining enough Lithium for power cells and processing it and what about recyclation of solar panels?

The problem is that people aren't even willing to entertain the idea. We have had a number of nuclear programs over the years. The biggest obstacle is lack of national funding. Gas reactors are cheap, they can be built en masse or slowly, and the economics are well understood. The same is true of green energy like wind power and solar. It's very scalable up and down. You can build 1 wind turbine, or 50 giant ones. On the other hand nuclear programs require vast amounts of capital. This is why miniaturization has been one of the "trendy" topics in nuclear power today.

[Genava]

The oceans & plants will absorb much of the methane.

Yeah sure, it is why there is an accumulation

Also, CO2 absorption at methane sources is significantly greater than areas without methane seepage due to photosynthetic algaea. We have observed photosynthetic algae are much more active over the methane sources & at the same time absorb more C02 than non-methane areas. The methane-rich waters also tend to be nutrient-rich, promote further growth of more algae. If what we have thus far observed occurs more broadly around the world, it could mean that methane seeps have a net cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect.

Look at this guy, trying to defend that the CO2 is not warming the Earth for several pages in this thread and now he says that a decrease in CO2 will have a cooling effect.

[Muizer]

Problem is... they're being given tours of the arctic in private jets. Then they're flying back home (in private jets), then flying around the world (in private jets) to give speeches about what they saw on their tour of the arctic (in a private jet), then they're flying half way around the world (in a private jet) to pick up a climate awareness award (which was delivered to the venue in a private jet), and so on and so forth.

These are the Al Gores of the world - the people who lecture us nonstop about global warming and how we must do more.

How do they expect us to take them, and their theory, seriously... when they don't take it seriously themselves?

The ones I refer to are 1) going in groups on a boat and 2) are not the Al Gore's making speeches, but CEO's of large companies.

[Gaidin]

CEO's largely go on private jets as a security requirement of their companies. You're really not going to change that until you have a large enough ownership share to influence the vote. The question here is, do the non-executives and non-board members do the same?

[Stario]

@ Genava my belief is still the same, that is the claim that C02 is the principle driver of climate change is FALSE!


"Arctic waters absorbed vast amounts of C02 from the atmosphere, creating a cooling effect that's 230 times greater than the warming from methane emitted from underwater seeps, according to a new study".

"If what we observed near Svalbard occurs more broadly at similar locations around the world, it could mean that methane seeps have a net cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect as we previously thought".

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../02/1618926114

[Genava]

@ Genava

"Arctic waters absorbed vast amounts of C02 from the atmosphere, creating a cooling effect that's 230 times greater than the warming from methane emitted from underwater seeps, according to a new study".

"If what we observed near Svalbard occurs more broadly at similar locations around the world, it could mean that methane seeps have a net cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect as we previously thought".

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../02/1618926114

Thanks but I know very well this study. I never said anything about it in particular. I only said that you are jumping on conclusion and that you are showing a lot of hypocrisy in this thread. You have a permanent confirmation bias on everything you read. The only thing that matters to you is to refuse that there is a problem with the climate, because it is a lefty thing in your view. You've shown all along that you did not think CO2 was the cause of global warming. Now you are accepting this fact but you twist it to say that anyway it will decrease and cools the world. You jump on any interpretation that suits you politically, even when the different interpretations are contradictory between themselves. It's ridiculous.

About this study, the experiment was made here:


It's really premature and immature to conclude that the whole ocean will react the same way. This study looks at the carbon cycle at a very short period of time and it is not known if the increased productivity is stabilized in the long term. When you promote the growth, generally you promote the respiration and decomposition as well. There is no full account of the mass balance in carbon in the long term. The reaction of the oceans around methane leaks is still something really debated and we don't know yet what to think about it. We know it could be dangerous, but this is not sure yet. Most of the methane feedback in the arctic regions are studied on terrestrial environment because it is easier.

And it's something disturbing with your partisan reaction. You did not even take into account the methane from permafrost melting.

Thus stop saying "the oceans & plants will absorb much of the methane". You do not know anything about it and clearly you go against the evidences available, methane is accumulating in the atmosphere.

[Basil II the B.S]

At this point I have decided that if global warming is real and is going to kill everyone, it's still a better option than living in the world liberals are trying to create. Under that aspect, Trump is a true hero and so is everyone that pollutes.

[Stario]

You've shown all along that you did not think CO2 was the cause of global warming.

I've shown that C02 is NOT the principle driver of climate change.

It's really premature and immature to conclude that the whole ocean will react the same way

I agree, more research needs to be done to ascertain whether these trends are global; so until we have such concrete research I will take all of what the global-warming alarmist have to say with a pinch of salt.

At this point I have decided that if global warming is real and is going to kill everyone, it's still a better option than living in the world liberals are trying to create. Under that aspect, Trump is a true hero and so is everyone that pollutes.

I agree. Bloody left-wing liberals HAHAHA

[Genava]

I've shown that C02 is NOT the principle driver of climate change.

You explicitly said that absorbing CO2 has a cooling effect. How can this be true without admitting that CO2 increases has the opposite effect?

I agree, more research needs to be done to ascertain whether these trends are global; so until we have such concrete research I will take all of what the global-warming alarmist have to say with a pinch of salt.

Nature published this review dismissing the catastrophic view of the methane bomb but even in this, it recognizes that the current CO2 accumulation is already a major problem:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/know...hange-24314790

As I said before, if the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society and The Geological Society of America all made statements confirming that the current climate change is human-induced and that we have a high level of confidence in this theory, then it is something serious. If it hurts your feelings and your political view of the world, it is not important.

Under that aspect, Trump is a true hero and so is everyone that pollutes.

Everyone that pollutes is a hero?

The intellectual decadence of politically-polarized snowflakes...

[Stario]

As I said before, if the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society and The Geological Society of America all made statements confirming that the current climate change is human-induced and that we have a high level of confidence in this theory, then it is something serious.

What's your point? I am not arguing it was or wasn't human induced.

You explicitly said that absorbing CO2 has a cooling effect. How can this be true without admitting that CO2 increases has the opposite effect?

I never denied C02 increases have the opposite effect!? You actually read what I post?

Lets clear things up a little, what I believe is C02 is NOT the principle driver of climate change. It is much more complicated when you add things such as the weakening geo-magnetic field, the up & comming grand solar minima, the movement of our entire solar system in our arm of the Milky Way galaxy- our system is moving out of a zone of higher density of gases and dust – the Local Cloud – into a “void” area... etc.

[Mayer]

1.5°C warming will be the end of humanity, not Nuclear War, a Ice Age, a supervulcano, a killer-asteroid, a alien invasion, or a gamma-ray burst from outer space burning the atmosphere. No, a warming of 1.5 degree Celsius.

1.5° the End is Nigh!

[Gallus]

I am also no expert, but it seems the mad dash to end nuclear power generation programs as has happened in Germany is way more making the problem worse instead of better. Solar and wind generation may help, but nuclear not in the solution set makes it not workable unless time and money is successful on new engineering solutions. If we are truly concerned with making this work in the short run, then existing nuclear technology needs to be a part of the solution set.

Agreed, considering the energy they produce, nuclear power plants are one of the greenest we have. Wind and solar power are nice, but not feasible in every country. A combination of solar and nuclear power is what we should be going for.