IPCC climate scientists issue ‘a survival guide for humanity’, warning window closing to reduce emissions

The world’s climate scientists have issued what one expert said is a “final warning” before global warming exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The report, known as the AR6, is a synthesis of six other reports by the IPCC — taking enormous amounts of data and simplifying it so policymakers inside and outside governments can use it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-21/ipcc-report-how-to-keep-global-warming-below-1-5-degrees/102112836

I ain’t read it yet

dv said:

IPCC climate scientists issue ‘a survival guide for humanity’, warning window closing to reduce emissions

The world’s climate scientists have issued what one expert said is a “final warning” before global warming exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The report, known as the AR6, is a synthesis of six other reports by the IPCC — taking enormous amounts of data and simplifying it so policymakers inside and outside governments can use it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-21/ipcc-report-how-to-keep-global-warming-below-1-5-degrees/102112836

I ain’t read it yet

AR6 Summary report download

I only read the science reports from IPPC

I wonder what Hanrahan would have to say about all of this.

Woodie said:

I wonder what Hanrahan would have to say about all of this.

U daresay he’d reckon we’ll all be rooned?

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

It does seem another arms race is on, Communists vs Capitalists with a new nation having nukes as well

Cymek said:

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

It does seem another arms race is on, Communists vs Capitalists with a new nation having nukes as well

Depends on what you mean by ‘nukes’.

I mean, it’s not like we’re going to be dropping submarines on them from out of the sky.

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

We need them to scare China, who is spending a lot of money scaring us. But now they’ll spend even more money, so we will eventually have to do the same.

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

It does seem another arms race is on, Communists vs Capitalists with a new nation having nukes as well

Depends on what you mean by ‘nukes’.

I mean, it’s not like we’re going to be dropping submarines on them from out of the sky.

Even Elvis couldn’t manage that.

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

It does seem another arms race is on, Communists vs Capitalists with a new nation having nukes as well

Depends on what you mean by ‘nukes’.

I mean, it’s not like we’re going to be dropping submarines on them from out of the sky.

you laugh but just add laser beams and

wait

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

It does seem another arms race is on, Communists vs Capitalists with a new nation having nukes as well

Depends on what you mean by ‘nukes’.

I mean, it’s not like we’re going to be dropping submarines on them from out of the sky.

North Korea has them now
China increasing all arms productions, Russia doing it as well, those on the other side having to do the same to keep up
Far less money to be spent on climate change mitigation and things to improve peoples lives

Kothos said:

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

We need them to scare China, who is spending a lot of money scaring us. But now they’ll spend even more money, so we will eventually have to do the same.

Hermann Hesse wrote about “If the war goes on” how arms race posturing can only end in war.

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

It does seem another arms race is on, Communists vs Capitalists with a new nation having nukes as well

Depends on what you mean by ‘nukes’.

I mean, it’s not like we’re going to be dropping submarines on them from out of the sky.

North Korea has them now
China increasing all arms productions, Russia doing it as well, those on the other side having to do the same to keep up
Far less money to be spent on climate change mitigation and things to improve peoples lives

what do you mean, all you have to do is to use them explosives actively and boom, no more excess population

roughbarked said:

Kothos said:

Ian said:

Australia could meet it’s share of “finance flows” quite easily without blowing a trillion dollars on subs that we really don’t need.

We need them to scare China, who is spending a lot of money scaring us. But now they’ll spend even more money, so we will eventually have to do the same.

Hermann Hesse wrote about “If the war goes on” how arms race posturing can only end in war.

worked in 1962 so yeah

mollwollfumble said:

I only read the science reports from IPPC

How do you decide whether it is or is not “science”.

Climate Change is an engineering problem.

Why do you only read the science?

Yes I heard on the news that the latest final warning was out.

dv said:

Makes sense its probably from a Stanley Kubrick script

Peak Warming Man said:

Yes I heard on the news that the latest final warning was out.

It’s outrageous, isn’t it Mr Man. Are you absolutely appalled? How dare they replace all those coveted and respected dire warnings, with all these vacuous final warnings? What is the world coming to, to trash the English language like that. Where will it all end??

Just discussing this on your ABC.

The first thing they talk about is no new coal and gas projects.

Shouldn’t the focus be on cutting demand, rather than cutting supply?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just discussing this on your ABC.

The first thing they talk about is no new coal and gas projects.

Shouldn’t the focus be on cutting demand, rather than cutting supply?

I don’t disagree with your central point but a big enough cut in supply can lead to lower consumption.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just discussing this on your ABC.

The first thing they talk about is no new coal and gas projects.

Shouldn’t the focus be on cutting demand, rather than cutting supply?

Can they tell us why power is going up 30 percent.

Why cant it go down 30 percent instead.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just discussing this on your ABC.

The first thing they talk about is no new coal and gas projects.

Shouldn’t the focus be on cutting demand, rather than cutting supply?

Can they tell us why power is going up 30 percent.

Why cant it go down 30 percent instead.

Mr Burns needs another ivory backscratcher

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just discussing this on your ABC.

The first thing they talk about is no new coal and gas projects.

Shouldn’t the focus be on cutting demand, rather than cutting supply?

Can they tell us why power is going up 30 percent.

Why cant it go down 30 percent instead.

Increased costs of electricity from coal and gas is a good thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just discussing this on your ABC.

The first thing they talk about is no new coal and gas projects.

Shouldn’t the focus be on cutting demand, rather than cutting supply?

Can they tell us why power is going up 30 percent.

Why cant it go down 30 percent instead.

Increased costs of electricity from coal and gas is a good thing.

I’m not 100% sure I agree with that, but increases in the price of the fuels used to create energy certainty will increase the cost of said energy when passed onto the consumer. The trick, I think, is to lower the cost of the alternative so that simple market forces drive the change.

On an alternative note, the “no new gas or coal mines” mantra is an itch I’m not sure the greens really want to scratch. If there were a moratorium put on new fossil fuel developments then I can only imagine every company holding tenements would be looking for compensation from the government.