Melting ice and glaciers in the Alps: Mer de Glace, Matterhorn in 2016 and 2017

[ABC2019]

What you explain to us in more than 9900 messages (!) Is that putting an end to the use of fossil fuels would be more harmful than the RCA itself.
To this we can answer the following:
1) There is not enough data to support or disprove such a claim.

in itself, this sentence is itself problematic, because if these data do not exist, how can we then conclude on what to do?

Can you imagine if the vaccination campaign had been decided "without sufficient data to know whether the vaccines are dangerous or not"? already with data, that's a problem, so I'm not telling you if we didn't have any!

but that said, the data, we have it, just have to look at it! all the studies quantify the cost of the RC at a few% of the GDP at most, and it is obvious that removing fossils in 30 years would cost much more than a few% of the GDP. It's just mind-blowing how people refuse to acknowledge this kind of evidence.

2) None of the projections serious do not take into account such a drop in fossil consumption in the future.

simply because what I'm saying is a truth that everyone knows deep down, it's not revolutionary: no we will not reduce emissions quickly enough to stay below 1,5 ° C, so stop breaking our hearts ... with this

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(When he doesn't think he has anything more to say, when he never has anything to say, he says to stop "breaking our balls", and he spam. He had already released it to us. for the HCQ ... Poor Bozo ...)

[sen-no-sen]

in itself, this sentence is itself problematic, because if these data do not exist, how can we then conclude on what to do?

At the time of writing, its lines no one on earth is able to accurately predict the state of the climate at the end of the century.There are many uncertainties (physical, geo-political, technological, etc.), 'where the use of models.
If the temperature increased by 5 ° C at the end of the century it would not be possible to say if necessary that the decrease in fossils would be more deleterious than the RCA. As far as I'm concerned I don't know ... so I does not assert.
But maybe you have precise knowledge on the future evolution of cloud masses and the melting of permafrost?

but that said, the data, we have it, just have to look at it! all studies quantify the cost of RC at a few% of the maximum GDP, and it is obvious that remove fossils in 30 years would cost much more than a few% of GDP. It's just mind-blowing how people refuse to acknowledge this kind of evidence.

Sources? (Still no serious predictions on the removal of fossils in 30 years)
What about a 3rd world conflict, planetary food insecurity, super-terrorism ??? Do the experts have crystal balls?
RCA's encryption predictions are based on cookie-cutter studies.

[ABC2019]

in itself, this sentence is itself problematic, because if these data do not exist, how can we then conclude on what to do?

At the time of writing, its lines no one on earth is able to accurately predict the state of the climate at the end of the century.There are many uncertainties (physical, geo-political, technological, etc.), 'where the use of models.
If the temperature increased by 5 ° C at the end of the century it would not be possible to say if necessary that the decrease in fossils would be more deleterious than the RCA. As far as I'm concerned I don't know ... so I does not assert.
But maybe you have precise knowledge on the future evolution of cloud masses and the melting of permafrost?

I wasn't talking about 5 ° C, I was talking about the difference between 1,5 ° C and 2 ° C (or even 2,5 ° C) and what should be done to avoid it.

If the consequences are serious at 2 ° C, then 5 ° C is unattainable since there would be a need for continuous growth in consumption during the XNUMXst century .. which is a priori impossible if the consequences are serious!

Sources? (Still no serious predictions on the removal of fossils in 30 years)

don't listen to you Jancovici then .
If removing fossils only cost a few% of the GDP, one wonders why nobody does it, including countries totally devoid of fossils which have no interest in using them!

the correlation between fossil fuel consumption and wealth is still very well attested ... unlike the GDP-RC correlation which is attested but in the wrong direction, the RC of the twentieth century not having in any way prevented the strongest growth ever experienced by humanity

What about a 3rd world conflict, planetary food insecurity, super-terrorism ??? Do the experts have crystal balls?
RCA's encryption predictions are based on cookie-cutter studies.

well we agree, therefore, we do not have sufficient information to declare that the right strategy is to remove fossils, since we do not know the consequences of RCA, nor those of removing fossils. So when you don't know, a priori, it is better to close your g ...

[sen-no-sen]

I wasn't talking about 5 ° C, I was talking about the difference between 1,5 ° C and 2 ° C (or even 2,5 ° C) and what should be done to avoid it.
If the consequences are serious at 2 ° C, then 5 ° C is unattainable since there would be a need for continuous growth in consumption during the XNUMXst century .. which is a priori impossible if the consequences are serious!

The consequences would be unattainable if we consider only the contributions of industrial activity, apart from there are many unknowns, in particular as regards the positive feedback loops which could be implemented by the melting of permafrost.

If removing fossils only cost a few% of the GDP, one wonders why nobody does it, including countries totally devoid of fossils which have no interest in using them!

Please source this statement: which model reports a abandon fossil fuels before 2050? I searched but found nothing on the subject.
To reduce is one thing, to give up is another matter.

[ABC2019]

The consequences would be unattainable if we consider only the contributions of industrial activity, apart from there are many unknowns, in particular as regards the positive feedback loops which could be implemented by the melting of permafrost.

you do not seem to have understood the meaning of my remark: whatever the loops of what you want, I tell you that if the consequences of a CR at 2 ° C are very serious (more than a few% of GDP), then they should block the growth of industrial society well before 5 ° C, so the 5 ° C (which requires this growth) would be unattainable.

If removing fossils only cost a few% of the GDP, one wonders why nobody does it, including countries totally devoid of fossils which have no interest in using them!

Please source this statement: which model reports a abandon fossil fuels before 2050? I searched but found nothing on the subject.
To reduce is one thing, to give up is another matter.

What I am saying is that if it only costs a few% of the GDP, frankly it would be inexplicable that we did not abandon them much earlier. the most rational explanation is that it would cost MUCH MORE than a few% of the GDP, and therefore much more than the costs of the RC

Suddenly the fact that we do not abandon them becomes perfectly understandable and coherent: it is that it would cost too much to society, much more expensive than the RC, contrary to what we are told night and day in the media.

[sen-no-sen]

you do not seem to have understood the meaning of my remark: whatever the loops of what you want, I tell you that if the consequences of a CR at 2 ° C are very serious (more than a few% of GDP), then they should block the growth of industrial society well before 5 ° C, so the 5 ° C (which requires this growth) would be unattainable.

As already mentioned, there are far too many unknowns to tell.

What I am saying is that if it only costs a few% of the GDP, frankly it would be inexplicable that we did not abandon them much earlier. the most rational explanation is that it would cost MUCH MORE than a few% of the GDP, and therefore much more than the costs of the RC

Insofar as the GDP is essentially linked to fossil fuels, you have the answer. However, many Rifkinian believers advocate a world focused on renewable energies while maintaining growth. The result will most likely be a global energy mix in order to continue in the worse.

[ABC2019]

you do not seem to have understood the meaning of my remark: whatever the loops of what you want, I tell you that if the consequences of a CR at 2 ° C are very serious (more than a few% of GDP), then they should block the growth of industrial society well before 5 ° C, so the 5 ° C (which requires this growth) would be unattainable.

As already mentioned, there are far too many unknowns to tell.

well no, the affirmation does not depend on the unknowns. If it is very serious, it is because it blocks the growth of emissions, if not, it is not very serious. Whatever the reasons it is serious or not.

What I am saying is that if it only costs a few% of the GDP, frankly it would be inexplicable that we did not abandon them much earlier. the most rational explanation is that it would cost MUCH MORE than a few% of the GDP, and therefore much more than the costs of the RC

Insofar as the GDP is essentially linked to fossil fuels, you have the answer. However, many Rifkinian believers advocate a world focused on renewable energies while maintaining growth. The result will most likely be a global energy mix in order to continue in the worse.

Rifkinians must explain why the transition has not already taken place for a long time, if it poses so few problems ...

in short they must explain this kind of graphic made by Jancovici



why nothing has changed despite all the agreements, negotiations, IPCC reports, COP XYZ etc ..... ??

while the answer is extremely simple in the case I am evoking, it is just that drastically reducing fossils would cost society too much.

An answer which naturally explains the observed facts is always better than an answer which does not explain them ...

[Exnihiloest]

... At the time of writing, its lines no one on earth is able to accurately predict the state of the climate at the end of the century ...

It's much worse than that: even at 5 years, no forecast is correct.
Can you provide me with a quantified forecast that would have been verified 5 years later, let's be good prince, to the nearest 30%?

[Exnihiloest]

...


why nothing has changed despite all the agreements, negotiations, IPCC reports, COP XYZ etc ..... ??

while the answer is extremely simple in the case I am evoking, it is just that drastically reducing fossils would cost society too much.
...

The agreements still have an effect: electricity will increase. By dint of building wind turbines, it had to happen, as in Australia or Germany.