Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change, ‘the world’s leading climate scientists’ have warned that the prospect of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius will be out of reach within 12 years at current rates of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet last week it was reported by leading climate scientists are warning that climate models are overestimating temperature changes by failing to take sufficient account of natural cyclical variations in the earth’s temperatures.

We cannot believe any of the nonsense. Nature doesn't agree, either.

The extinction of humankind would be a boon to the other species on earth. Environmental problems would disappear with the end of that species. Life on earth would go on.

So true david f, soooo true.......

david f,

That is the most ridiculous thing you have ever come up with, mate. Are you volunteering to be the first to set an example and leave the world to animals. You could hold hands with ateday as you show us how it's done, although I don't think your idea would be taken up by many people .

I note the Author hasn't excluded nuclear power as an option a few refuse to even consider, because they're wedded to the fossil fuel industry?

Or more succinctly, a few tin-eared, recalcitrant, OBTUSE politicians have vested interests in coal gas or oil?

Some advocate the direct removal from the atmosphere of CO2/ While technically possible via fractional distillation. A far better method would be to vacuum it out of seawater! Via large vacuum towers. And where the seawater can be used to extract volumetric hydrogen, which is then combined with the already extracted CO2 to create endlessly sustainable, alternative hydrocarbons, fertilizers and plastics! Albeit some of the created or reclaimed CO2 and hydrogen can be used and sold as dry ice or liquified Hydrogen gas.

We need to be planting trees as plantations of high-value cabinet timbers. This stacks up as a long term business case, if you're considering retirement or inheritance outcomes!

water needs to be made from seawater and too easy if it is made via deionisation dialysis desalination which produces around 95% potable water at four times the volume of reverse osmosis.

And cheap enough to make it available for broad-scale irrigation desertification or inexhaustible and guaranteed town supply!

All extremely practical if nuclear power, i.e, MSR thorium is the principle dispatchable, 24/7 reliable power supply. With beneficial medical alpha and beta particles created from the decay products! And what waste is created, eminently suitable as long-life space batteries that burn up with reentry!

Interestingly, when we extract volumetric CO2 from seawater, the seawater replaces most of it by extracting it from the atmosphere, due to the symbiotic attraction of the oceans to the CO2 content in the atmosphere?

Moreover, if some of this extract is used in high-value, labour intensive, under glass agriculture after flowering and pollination. then most parasitical bugs would asphyxiate, well before they can infest the production. Not only that, but CO2 in those circumstances as a purging gas assists production as if it were a fertilizer!

Naturally, workers would have to wear breathing apparatus and from piped outside air.
Alan B.

ttbn. You talk endless rubbish and are patently clueless? 3% of so-called climate scientists, does not equate to a consensus/universal agreement by the remaining 97%!

Others stupidly believe some species would survive a mass extinction event?

If humans go, they will be among the very last, as they can and will construct artificial living conditions that allow them and their companion animals to survive a worldwide cotasrophe!

As others (the birds and the bees etc) collapse in the heat and carbon laden atmosphere. Heatstroke taking out the non-sweating cohort! AS the surface water dries up!

Simply put, sitting still or fiddling as Rome burns is not an option, nor is the current status quo! Whereas, remedial action of the scale needed will bring with it massive economic benefit! With a tiny handful of losers!

Albeit, the latter includes some of the currently richest most powerful people on the planet!
Alan B.

You are the expert when it comes to talking gibberish and rubbish, Alan. Consensus is not science, and the 97% is a lie, cobbled together from many climate-tricksters - most not scientists anyway - to look as if it came from one organisation. Do more reading. Do less gibbering.

I wonder just what Murray is an associate professor of. It certainly can't be any subject with math involved, or he would know that CO2 can't do more than 10% of the balderdash it is supposed to do by those idiots wanting to do away with fossil fuel. The warmists have to continually invent mythical tipping points to try to prove the impossible. Why do some people burst into print to project their ignorance to all?

Then we have Alan off on another of his fantasies. I don't know where he gets the idea that it is pro fossil fuel people who are against nuclear power. Out here in the real world it is the greenies who are against nuclear Alan, not the petrol heads.

In fact many petrol heads do realise that petroleum is really too valuable to burn on that Sunday drive. Most of us would be completely happy to have a new motive power developed to drive our transport, but we are practical enough to know battery powered cars are not the answer.

With out oil derived products our modern world can not exist. Neither our health care system, or the every day products we need can be produced with out oil based chemicals.

I do get tired of trying to talk to the useful idiots in this world.

Hasbeen,
Hear, hear !

Meanwhile our fearless idiot leader rabbits on about how carbon capture and storage and technology will save the day. I suspect that day has already passed.
David

Carbon Capture and Storage is an oxymoron.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

You know it is really good to have you commenting of this topic, it shows just how left behind some people are.

Mate, there are so few singing off that song sheet that you really look like an old fool. How about you accept what 95% of the people do, that climate change is real and it needs dealing with.

As to CO2 I will again ask what property of it do you want me to dismiss to allow for our take on rising temperatures?

Oh good...we have 10 years to save the planet!

Is that different to the ten years we had ten years ago?

Or the ten years we had 15 years ago? ("And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return"
Al Gore)

Or the ten years we had 30 years ago?...

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

We've always got 10 years, except when we've only got 4 years, but when nothing gets done, miraculously the ten years gets replenished. Its the world's most successful recycling scheme.

And news just in of a new record high for Europe. 48.8 degrees recorded in Italy.

Apparently nothing to see here.

Dear mhaze,

Yes they are trying to give some hope. It is abundantly clear to all but the most ideologically willfully ignorant that the world is already suffering the impacts of a warming planet and it is very likely that the future world we are leaving to new generations will be quite different to the one we have enjoyed thus far, with far more challenges that we have had to face.

If you truly had any regard for the mental health of our young then you may have some inkling of how important that is.

"the world is already suffering the impacts of a warming planet ..."


So you've chosen to ignore the evidence that climate impacts have been declining for a century?

for example (among myriad other data)...http://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

"If you truly had any regard for the mental health of our young then you may have some inkling of how important that is."

Well to allay the fears of the young I'd tell them not to worry because even though we've only got 10 years to save the planet, in ten year time, we'll still have ten years to save the planet. Indeed they can rest assured that, based on past evidence, their grandkids will still have ten years to save the planet.

I keep reading statements that the increase in CO2 follows temperature
increase, NOT the other way around.
This contradiction to AGW never gets explained.
Why ?

Bazz,
It's not just a case of one following the other; it's a positive feedback loop. Increasing CO2 increases temperature (because it absorbs and reradiates infrared), and increasing temperature increases atmospheric CO2 (because CO2 is more soluble in cold water than in hot). Conversely, decreasing CO2 has a cooling effect, and cooler oceans hold more CO2 and hence reduce its atmospheric concentration.

Data from ice cores seems to show the warming and cooling start before the CO2 levels start to increase and decrease respectively. Due (I think) to the time taken for snow to turn to ice, there is some doubt over whether the data that conclusion is based on is interpreted correctly, but assuming it is, the explanation's simple enough: changes in the amount of solar radiation this planet receives (I think due to changes in its orbit) result in some warming, which results in CO2 being released from the oceans, resulting in more warming, and more CO2 released, and more warming and so on until eventually the effect is stopped by a decrease in the amount of solar radiation this planet receives, at which point a cooling feedback cycle begins.

Note that it's a slow process; much slower than the current rises in CO2 and temperature.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
You misunderstand the way mathematics applies in the real world. Correct calculations won't give the correct result if they're based on incorrect assumptions.

mhaze,
It varies from country to country, but humans are generally pretty good at modifying their local environment to minimise the chances of extreme weather resulting in human deaths. It doesn't mean the problem's not worsening.

We had a chance to limit warming to 1°C. We blew it.
We had a chance to limit warming to 1.5°C. We blew it.
Now the best realistic scenario is to limit warming to 2°C, and we're not even on track to achieve that.
And keep in mind the above figures are the average - the extremes will be much hotter.

If we fail then however bad things get, of course we're going to try for a new, achievable target to limit the consequences of our actions as far as possible. We'll have to live with the consequences of our past failures. But many creatures won't be able to live with it.