Feeds

back to article Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE

New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades. “In …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Smoke and mirrors

Nothing to worry about then, the exponential increase doesn't occur for another 37 years.

/sarcasm off.

21
10
Silver badge
Meh

So does this mean...

So does this mean that the Government will drop its green energy plan that no other country appears to be bothered about, except Germany, and help to reduce our fuel costs and lower taxes?

No, the great European Sting is climate change as it gives them an excuse to fleece the population with higher taxes, which incidentally are not spent on reducing CO2.

19
10
Anonymous Coward

7.8 billion years

The sun goes supernova and the world is fried into dust particle....

So in the meantime, let's party and fcuk global warming!

4
3

No, that's NOT what this means.

Continuing to add more and more GHG pollution will only make habitability worse for those generations to come. The effects continue for hundreds of years at least. Let's get to work, NOW, to reduce GHG pollution.

13
28

Re: No, that's NOT what this means.

"Continuing to add more and more GHG pollution will only make habitability worse for those generations to come. The effects continue for hundreds of years at least. Let's get to work, NOW, to reduce GHG pollution"

Please come and "pollute" my plants - they need this kind of pollution.

With a user name like ReduceGHGs, I assume you get paid to write this drivel.

17
5

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Future FUD [was Re: 7.8 billion years]

"The sun goes supernova..."

Good FUD, but the fact that the mass of the sun precludes such an event may be important here.

1
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: 7.8 billion years

"The sun goes supernova"

No. The sun may at some point go nova. It's not big enough to go supernova. You've fallen for the media hype. Nothing ever goes "nova" these days. It always has to be "supernova" because it's bigger, has "super" in the name and therefore has a super big scarification factor.

2
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: No, that's NOT what this means.

Personally, I'd rather we reduce our emissions of actual poisons into the environment.

Things like mercury, heavy metals, arsenic etc. The compounds that actually kill people, animals and plants.

Oddly, a lot of that stuff is in the majority of "green" (ie low-carbon) items but not in the near-equivalent high-carbon item.

15
2
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: So does this mean...

"no other country appears to be bothered about, except Germany"

The two might not be directly related, but Germany actually DOES have a working economy while the UK's is tanking. Methinks UK's problems with fuel costs and rising taxes have a lot more to do with productivity and handouts than with 'green' energy policy

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Smoke and mirrors

37 years of unnecessary taxes in the meantime

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Good FUD

Nova or supernova it doesn't matter. At 1AU we're all still dead.

Unless of course you get raptured before that.

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: No, that's NOT what this means.

"Continuing to add more and more GHG pollution will only make habitability worse for those generations to come".

Firstly CO2 is not pollution, without it habitability of the planet would be zero.

Secondly how do you know habitability will be worse? What is the ideal global temperature for habitability?

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Good FUD

Yeah, well, quite honestly, with 7.8 billion years to go, I'm not really bothered too much about this - nova or supernova, I'll probably have worked off my 72,000 kalpas by then.

0
0

Re: No, that's NOT what this means.

Yea, we learned what plants need in the 6th grade but thanks anyway. News Flash... Too much of anything can be harmful?

And do you mean to say that there's money to be made informing people about climate change? Really? There's certainly a lot of money blowing around to confuse people. The fossil fuel industry has been funding the disinformation about it for years!

0
2

Re: No, that's NOT what this means.

Tosh.

The biggest sources of mercury pollution are from burning coal, dental discharge and gold mining.

Arsenic and heavy metals are pretty much everywhere, digging up coal also releases them into the environment and groundwater etc.

Same for oil and gas - they have to be purified. Nuclear makes a shitload of waste.

Solar and wind farms just sit there, quietly making electricity... no wind spills, solar leaks nor breeze fallout to worry about.

What "green" low-carbon items are you thinking of that have "a lot of that stuff" in them?

0
1

Re: No, that's NOT what this means.

Sure, just forget about the pollution caused in the mining of the rare earths and metal required for those 'green' technologies, and the environmental impacts of deploying them. Both solar and wind farms have huge geographical footprints. Wind farms kill birds. Solar farms destroys habitats. And if you want reliable 24x7 energy, you must use a lot of storage batteries. Take your pick, lead or lithium. Besides the destruction done in the mining of them, they are both dangerous to our environment should they be scattered by storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, terrorism, etc.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: So does this mean...

"So does this mean that the Government will drop its green energy plan that no other country appears to be bothered about, except Germany"

and Australia

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Bronze badge
Facepalm

nothing to see here , carry on

carry on as we are until 2050 ? ? ?

This seems to be neglecting a few other issues like population and Peak Oil

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Very poor and overtly deceptive journalism. You left out what he really said:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp

"Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years."

37
20
g e
Silver badge
Meh

Well.

They had to put something in to mollify the IPCC arch-diocese or be labelled crackpots/heretics.

23
11

I see what you did there...

You quoted the bit where the paper forgot that it was a science paper and switched to making policy recommendations.

Fact is, that there are a lot of papers popping up that indicate that the climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.6-2c and this is good news if true.

Perhaps then we can concentrate a little more on lifting the majority of the worlds population out of poverty, making sure they don't die of stuff we can already cure or from drinking dodgy water. We can save millions every year *now*...

22
10
Silver badge

Re: Well.

"They had to put something in to mollify the IPCC arch-diocese or be labelled crackpots/heretics."

Well if you know them to be liars why do you trust their paper at all?

It's the same thing I ask of creationists who do the same thing. Eg:

"Oh yeah I didn't mention the part where they say the result backs the theory of evolution because...in that part they clearly weren't serious and were just mollifying their atheist arch-diocese or be labelled heretics"

8
13
Anonymous Coward

That is a purely political statement that expresses his personal beliefs and has nothing whatsoever to do with the results of the research.

10
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well.

> Well if you know them to be liars why do you trust their paper at all?

The statement is neither a lie nor the truth, it is a statement full of rhetoric.

5
6
Silver badge
Holmes

this is LP land remember...

Never let the facts get in the way of a pointless (i didn't even bother to read it, don't need to, i already know what it says) skeptic rant.

Lewis != journalist

occasionally entertaining, but as a journo even fox news would say 'get the fuck outta here'

17
20
FAIL

Re: Well.

NomNomNom, like most climate activists, can't tell the difference.

Who's idea was it to give him a keyboard? It's a total fail every time he starts typing.

7
9
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: I see what you did there...

But should we safe millions? The earth is grossly overpopulated and population MUST be reduced. Several reasons: We are Methane / CO2 factories (but we only account for so little, its practically meaningless), but we are also having issues with food: Soon we can't produce more food than we consume and we will start to have less and less food, unless there are less people to feed. Then we destroy many eco-systems, that would wouldn't have to destroy for greed and other puny reasons...

2
4
Anonymous Coward

@Naughtyhorse

"Never let the facts get in the way of a pointless (i didn't even bother to read it, don't need to, i already know what it says) skeptic rant."

Anyone who reads your comments on this site will agree that you didn't need to read the article. Because you're not actually capable of making intelligent comments, are you?

4
6

It is the sun's activity

Our sun's activity drives our climate. From the 1920s to 1998, the sun was at one of its highest active states in the last 10,000 years and the Earth warmed. Since 1998, the sun has cycled into its 180 year cycle of inactivity, and the warming has stopped. NASA predicts a very inactive sun cycle 25 and the world will get colder approaching the Dalton Minimum. The earth has been covered with ice sheets when CO2 has been much higher than today's minimally plant feeding levels, cut CO2 in half and plant life starts dying. The world better get ready for massive crop failures due to the coming little ice age or worse, The Holocene age is overdue to drop into a full ice age with mile thick sheets of ice over the Great Lakes in the US.

3
8

Re: Well.

NomNomNom -- you are obviously not from Norway, nor have you lived here.

Norwegian scientists are more often than not on one crusade or another. Political biases run rampant.

This report will not receive any attention in Norway, and if that fails they will make sure that they quote the one bit that does not rely on any scientific evidence.

Norway is one freaky nation as we talk the loudest concerning "climate change", yet do not reduce our oil production by a single barrel. Instead we are still searching out new fields.

Which makes complete sense for those of us that think the myths concerning CO2 are mostly designed to scare us into paying even more taxes.

The notion that a vital component for all green life on Earth is somehow poisonous should require a substantial amount of proof. Sadly, the green activists have long ago decided that proof is not necessary. (the anti-H2O petition amply demonstrates this)

6
12
Anonymous Coward

@Naughtyhorse

Just to clarify-

1. Your an MMCC co2 theory "we all doomed" believer.

2. You didnt read the article.

3. You think you know the answers because you read only the sources that 100% support your pre-existing beliefs.

Whodathunkit?

1
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Modelling??

>> So past models were showing large possible temp increases, this new model is showing less of an increase... that still does not address the underlying fact that models are themselves just projections based on inputs fed into them, and therefore, not to be taken as gospel truth. (although of course if, as models get more refined, their projected temperature increase continues to drop, this need sto be taken account of)

>> 1.9 degrees up to 2050 isn't THAT reassuring if BAD THINGS are going to happen at 2 degrees more. (Note that I very much inzend to still be alive in 2050 and will be wanting to enjoy my retirement). So of course, besides questioning the rate of projected temperature increase, we can also have our improved modelling look at the consequences of such increase.

>> @Mr Page - just to confirm, does this mean that you DO acknowledge that human activity is causing the planet to warm, even if you're not that concerned about it because you believe that it will cost us less to deal with it than to try and stop it?

3
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: I see what you did there...

"The earth is grossly overpopulated and population MUST be reduced"

That's a serious question, and deserves a lot more serious answer than can be debated in a few words on a forum. Fundamentally, given a maximum limit on energy that it is possible to generate sustainably over the long term post fossil-fuel bonanza, humanity will need to decide whether it's better off with X billion living in comfort or 10X billion living in misery. But that discussion can never be seriously made while 80% of the human population live in conditions MUCH worse than that of the other 20%.

And out of curiosity, when you say population MUST be reduced, you're not including yourself, right? Because most of the people I hear making that argument seem to be directing it at Asia and Africa, even though when considering (population X resource consumption per capita) rather than simply population, it's the developed nations that are causing resource strain not 'overpopulation'

4
1
Silver badge

Re: I see what you did there...

I think the original poster *is* including themself in the proposed population reduction.

In order to achieve a population reduction, nobody actually has to die of anything besides old age -- as long as we stop having so many babies.

5
1
Meh

Re: I see what you did there...

Also, he forgot to note who funds said department and in whose pockets they are politically. Begin here:

http://www.mn.uio.no/geo/english/about/collaboration/il/

Ooh...look...petroleum industry partners.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: I see what you did there...

"Ooh...look...petroleum industry partners."

But if the science holds up to further scrutiny that is irrelevant.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: we are also having issues with food

The 18th Century called, they want their Malthusian FUD returned to them.

We don't have food production problems, we have food distribution problems. Get rid of the green despots posing as saviors of the children and we can get things fixed up fairly quickly.

2
2

Re: Modelling??

>> @Mr Page - just to confirm, does this mean that you DO acknowledge that human activity is causing the planet to warm, even if you're not that concerned about it because you believe that it will cost us less to deal with it than to try and stop it?

Also, @Mr Page: does this mean models are OK now? Coz I thought doing science by models was rubbish and proved you were a commie...?

0
1
Silver badge

Re: you're not including yourself, right?

Well, there's certainly no need to include the US or European nations as their birthrate is already below replacement level. China is working their way down too with their 1 child policy, but given their penchant for aborting girls, it's unclear what will happen when their overly male population actually gets restless. Now maybe they'll just expend themselves attacking the also "overly populated" Indian peninsula, but do you really want to bet your LIFE on that?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: you're not including yourself, right?

"Well, there's certainly no need to include the US or European nations as their birthrate is already below replacement level"

OK, the "you're not including yourself, right? " was throwaway sarcasm that some people seem to have misunderstood. My main point was that "overpopulation" is a red herring, the real problem is too much resource requirement, of which population is only partly a factor. 100 million people in US or Europe consume as much resources as 1 billion in Africa or Asia.

Long-term, as Asians and Africans are increasing their prosperity they also need to stabilise their population. On the developed nations side, where populations are already quite stable, we need to translate efficiency gains into less energy usage, instead of teh current status quo where gains in efficiencyre used to be able to consume more using the same resources, rather than consuming the same using less resources.

0
0

Re: I see what you did there...

If you believe the twiddle you wrote, then you are advocating that some of the world's population should either die or be forbidden to reproduce. Unless you include yourself and your family in that, then all you are advocating is that others should die or not be born so that you and yours can have all that you want. That would be so breathtakingly selfish, that I'm sure it's not what you intend. So who in your family and your potential descendants are you willing to sacrifice for the good of all?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The planet will always be fine

The humans, on the other hand...

17
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The planet will always be fine

Yup, maybe the earth will warm up too much, maybe it won't. But for certain pouring ridiculous amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and water system is not doing anyone any good.

While everyone wastes time arguing over the effects of CO2 we are ignoring the very real problem of all the other byproducts of fossil fuel use.

14
2
Boffin

Just to expand on AC 10:12

Over reliance on fossil fuels will fuck us up big time eventually, whether that be from boiling us, poisoning us or just through running out.

5
7
FAIL

Re: Just to expand on AC 20:12

20:12 !

sure I read somewhere that we'd be able to edit posts for a few minutes after posting them ????

0
0
Bronze badge
Childcatcher

Seaside Property

This study points to a startling lack of ambition on the part of the entire human race. We should re-double our efforts to reduce the total landmass available, thereby artificially increasing the price of that same land. That consumers can be persuaded to pay for increased production of greenhouse gasses will increase overall profits even more.

Now, I just have to make sure that my house is not too close to the sea...

5
3
Trollface

The real villain?

This story definitely avoided the obvious fact that Global warming has stalled due to the worldwide cool reception of Windows 8. Not forgetting either the Glacial sales of Windows RT tablets!

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: The real villain?

That you Eadon.

3
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.