No time to spare in addressing anthropogenic climate change from burning fossil fuels

[Juvenal]

The CO2 Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development
.

Dr. Laurman’s report uniquely concedes that there is “strong evidence” that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is “anthropogenic” and caused “mainly from fossil fuel burning.” Further, the report dismisses uncertainties surrounding the current carbon cycle modeling and natural climate variability. Predicting a global average of 2.5 degrees C rise expected by 2038 with “major economic consequences” and a 5 degree C rise by 2067 with “globally catastrophic effects,” the report concludes that there is “no leeway” regarding the “time for action.”

TWebbers are strongly encouraged to read the report before commenting.

[rogue06]

The CO2 Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development
.

Dr. Laurman’s report uniquely concedes that there is “strong evidence” that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is “anthropogenic” and caused “mainly from fossil fuel burning.” Further, the report dismisses uncertainties surrounding the current carbon cycle modeling and natural climate variability. Predicting a global average of 2.5 degrees C rise expected by 2038 with “major economic consequences” and a 5 degree C rise by 2067 with “globally catastrophic effects,” the report concludes that there is “no leeway” regarding the “time for action.”

TWebbers are strongly encouraged to read the report before commenting.

As short as it is you could have simply included it.

February 29, 1980 the American Petroleum Institute hosts a meeting with its CO2 and Climate Task Force comprised of fossil fuel industry representatives from Exxon, Texaco, and Standard Oil. The meeting was called to discuss research needs regarding the rise in atmospheric CO2, to establish API’s position on “climate matters,” and to edit API’s technical letter to the Department of Energy. The meeting was largely centered around the attached report by Dr. J. A. Laurman – “The CO2 Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development”

Despite stating that “the physical facts agree” that large effects of global climate change will be realized in 50 years and that a 2% decrease in fossil fuel consumption would “considerably ease” the “immediate problem,” the committee still focuses on the “large probable error” of the data. From API’s perspective, atmospheric CO2 deserves increased attention not because of the potential risks, but because of the correlation between the rise in CO2 and industrial fossil fuel combustion, scientific consensus, and the extended period of time for remedial efforts to become effective.

Dr. Laurman’s report uniquely concedes that there is “strong evidence” that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is “anthropogenic” and caused “mainly from fossil fuel burning.” Further, the report dismisses uncertainties surrounding the current carbon cycle modeling and natural climate variability. Predicting a global average of 2.5 degrees C rise expected by 2038 with “major economic consequences” and a 5 degree C rise by 2067 with “globally catastrophic effects,” the report concludes that there is “no leeway” regarding the “time for action.”

I believe we had similar dire warnings back in the 1990s. We were right at the tipping point then.

Further, we've been making great strides in reducing emissions whereas countries like India and China, which FWIU, have recently surpassed the U.S. in such emissions have been given a pass.

Final note. I wonder what effect Europe turning back on coal-burning plants this winter will have.

[Juvenal]

As short as it is you could have simply included it.

That's not the report.

[seer]

TWebbers are strongly encouraged to read the report before commenting.

I expect you to you your part, first, stop using all appliances that run on electricity. Like your computer and cell phone, electric lights, etc,etc.etc...

[Cerebrum123]

That's not the report.

The report doesn't disagree with what he quoted. In fact it outright states much of what is in the summary. Like the following.

Immediate Policy Questions. The physical facts agree of the probability of large effects 50 years away, but with large probable error. Source of error arises from deforestation.

That's from the report itself, it is one of the highlighted sections.

rogue's question still arises, climate alarmists have been crying wolf since before I was born. Why should we believe them now?

[Gondwanaland]

The CO2 Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development
.

Dr. Laurman’s report uniquely concedes that there is “strong evidence” that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is “anthropogenic” and caused “mainly from fossil fuel burning.” Further, the report dismisses uncertainties surrounding the current carbon cycle modeling and natural climate variability. Predicting a global average of 2.5 degrees C rise expected by 2038 with “major economic consequences” and a 5 degree C rise by 2067 with “globally catastrophic effects,” the report concludes that there is “no leeway” regarding the “time for action.”

TWebbers are strongly encouraged to read the report before commenting.

Have you done the single most individually impactful thing you can do to lower your greenhouse emissions and gone vegan?

[Ronson]

The report doesn't disagree with what he quoted. In fact it outright states much of what is in the summary. Like the following.

Immediate Policy Questions. The physical facts agree of the probability of large effects 50 years away, but with large probable error. Source of error arises from deforestation.

That's from the report itself, it is one of the highlighted sections.

rogue's question still arises, climate alarmists have been crying wolf since before I was born. Why should we believe them now?

I'm guessing the point being made is that these were oil company reps making these determinations, 42 years ago, and their conclusions run contrary their self interests.
1) Green technology isn't yet sufficient to be mandated. It has to be affordable and efficient.
2) The global economy is in meltdown. No amount of Chicken Little alarms are going to get much momentum right now.
3) This topic is poison for advocates this November.

[Mountain Man]

The CO2 Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development
.

Dr. Laurman’s report uniquely concedes that there is “strong evidence” that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is “anthropogenic” and caused “mainly from fossil fuel burning.” Further, the report dismisses uncertainties surrounding the current carbon cycle modeling and natural climate variability. Predicting a global average of 2.5 degrees C rise expected by 2038 with “major economic consequences” and a 5 degree C rise by 2067 with “globally catastrophic effects,” the report concludes that there is “no leeway” regarding the “time for action.”

TWebbers are strongly encouraged to read the report before commenting.

We've been hearing this song and dance for literally decades, and yet the climate is doing just fine. Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable with not appreciable change in one direction or the other.

[Mountain Man]

I expect you to you your part, first, stop using all appliances that run on electricity. Like your computer and cell phone, electric lights, etc,etc.etc...

You don't understand. Conservation is only for the "little people".

[seanD]

The CO2 Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development
.

Dr. Laurman’s report uniquely concedes that there is “strong evidence” that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is “anthropogenic” and caused “mainly from fossil fuel burning.” Further, the report dismisses uncertainties surrounding the current carbon cycle modeling and natural climate variability. Predicting a global average of 2.5 degrees C rise expected by 2038 with “major economic consequences” and a 5 degree C rise by 2067 with “globally catastrophic effects,” the report concludes that there is “no leeway” regarding the “time for action.”

TWebbers are strongly encouraged to read the report before commenting.

I don't own a car because I work from home. I keep myself tip top shape, so if it's within a 4 mile radius I walk, if outside that radius I use a bike or public transit. I live in a 200 sq ft. apartment and occasionally use my AC when it's not summer if the weather is hotter than usual. I don't eat beef everyday, but have a steady diet of canned salmon and there's way I'm giving that up!

Other than giving up meat, what more must I do to adhere to the climate change dogma, and may I ask what your carbon footprint is?

[rogue06]

I don't own a car because I work from home. I keep myself tip top shape, so if it's within a 4 mile radius I walk, if outside that radius I use a bike or public transit. I live in a 200 sq ft. apartment and occasionally use my AC when it's not summer if the weather is hotter than usual. I don't eat beef everyday, but have a steady diet of canned salmon and there's way I'm giving that up!

Other than giving up meat, what more must I do to adhere to the climate change dogma, and may I ask what your carbon footprint is?

I'm gonna assume you meant 1200 sq. ft.

[seanD]

I'm gonna assume you meant 1200 sq. ft.

Nope. I'm single and have a very minimalist lifestyle.

[Stoic]

I don't own a car because I work from home. I keep myself tip top shape, so if it's within a 4 mile radius I walk, if outside that radius I use a bike or public transit. I live in a 200 sq ft. apartment and occasionally use my AC when it's not summer if the weather is hotter than usual. I don't eat beef everyday, but have a steady diet of canned salmon and there's way I'm giving that up!

Other than giving up meat, what more must I do to adhere to the climate change dogma, and may I ask what your carbon footprint is?

No one is asking for volunteers to solve the problem. If we did that, then there would be a few volunteers, who would soon see that there weren't enough of them to make a significant difference, and then they would stop. The end result would be the same as if we did nothing about the problem.

It's the sort of problem that can only be solved at the government level, which means electing representatives who recognize the problem, and are willing to do something about it. And keep them in office even when the measures they take to solve the problem cause a lot of dissatisfaction.

And no, I don't expect this to happen. When my grandchildren ask me what went wrong, I'll have to tell them that, as a species, we just aren't smart enough to survive.

[seanD]

No one is asking for volunteers to solve the problem. If we did that, then there would be a few volunteers, who would soon see that there weren't enough of them to make a significant difference, and then they would stop. The end result would be the same as if we did nothing about the problem.

It's the sort of problem that can only be solved at the government level, which means electing representatives who recognize the problem, and are willing to do something about it. And keep them in office even when the measures they take to solve the problem cause a lot of dissatisfaction.

And no, I don't expect this to happen. When my grandchildren ask me what went wrong, I'll have to tell them that, as a species, we just aren't smart enough to survive.

The main problem is that the climate change cult has a serious optics problem. When you have wealthy elitists flying around in private jets trying to convince the plebs to reduce their carbon footprint, the message is not going to go over well under any circumstances when elections arrive no matter how serious of a problem it is or isn't.

And I don't think it's necessarily that government reps don't recognize the problem (after all, we've had this global warming spiel shoved down out throats from all sides of culture for decades now), it's that they're smart of enough to see the deleterious economic effects of trying to implement polices to curb it and the civil disruption and unrest that would ensue.

[Ronson]

No one is asking for volunteers to solve the problem. If we did that, then there would be a few volunteers, who would soon see that there weren't enough of them to make a significant difference, and then they would stop. The end result would be the same as if we did nothing about the problem.

It's the sort of problem that can only be solved at the government level, which means electing representatives who recognize the problem, and are willing to do something about it. And keep them in office even when the measures they take to solve the problem cause a lot of dissatisfaction.

And no, I don't expect this to happen. When my grandchildren ask me what went wrong, I'll have to tell them that, as a species, we just aren't smart enough to survive.

I assume this would be a living grandfather telling this to his living grandchildren.

The reason we've survived as long as we have is due to advancing technology and adaptation, and I suspect both will continue to serve us in the future and allow you to have that conversation. What we don't need - right now - are mandates from blockheads in government who turn elitist as soon as they walk through those doors, telling the little people to buy EVs while they scoot around in private jets. The technology isn't here anyway.