World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target
Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.
Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.
What does that have to do with removal of CO2 and methane? There are plenty of solar, wind, wave, and salt powered removal solutions, as well as chemical.
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/exploratory-topics/direct-ocean-capture
Edit: Additional information on carbon conversion processes from further down in this thread
https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use
https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
Sorry, you said methane and i assumed you were talking about carbon capture from fossile fuel plants.
None of those are current solutions, step 1 is they release the co2 from the ocean. There is no step 2.
That’s simply not true. There are many models that convert it to bicarbonate or ethanol, building materials, bioplastics, or bind the carbon in solid form to be safely released back into the environment. The problem is they’re all expensive.
Oh, those werent in the link you provided, or in what i found looking at current carbon capture technology.
Search for “captured carbon conversion” to find out more about that step. Here are a few options, but there are countless more. We have many smart scientists that create solutions often. They rarely receive funding to take the initiatives out of the laboratory.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-discover-how-to-convert-co2-into-powder-that-can-be-stored-for-decades/
https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use
https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
Man they all talk about making carbon neutral fuel out of it. Taking the co2 out and putting it right back in
That’s from the Stanford link provided above.
Read the rest of that paragraph.
The only reason they’re leaning into fuel creation is to generate a profitable product to secure funding. There are many more responsible ways to convert the carbon that would cost more money because they don’t yield a profitable product. So to bring it back to the point of my claim, more money would help.
no, this is what their research does, it creates carbon neutral fuel(or low carbon considering its an energy consuming process).
you wanted to show me that co2 can be used to make plastics and construction materials, and these people want to suggest it to secure more funding, but it hasnt been done yet.
The process is not new. Polyol is a plastic with more than one hydroxyl group, and most commonly made using CO2 and methanol or ethanol.
https://packagingeurope.com/news/how-can-the-plastics-industry-harness-carbon-capture-with-polymers-made-from-emissions/8432.article
The reason you don’t see it is because it would combat use of oil based plastics.
https://globalventuring.com/corporate/industrial/carbon-capture-plastics/
Again, this is all about money. The science is there.