Report: Climate change 'worst-case scenario' ruled out

American Thinker ^ | 02/09/2018 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

The most cataclysmic scenarios for global warming have been ruled out, according to a new report from the University of British Columbia. But the report also warns that the climate will still destabilize, wreaking havoc on the planet.

According to the report, it all comes down to a reduction in the use of coal.

Bloomberg:

The researchers contend that current goals of reducing coal, oil[,] and gas consumption may be closer than we think, thus allowing us to set the bar even higher in our efforts to reduce pollution.  The bad news is that this is good news in the way a destabilizing climate-shift is preferable to planetary extinction: [w]e are still in a lot of trouble.  Nevertheless, if the study is verified by other scientists and catches a wave into the realm of policy[-]makers, it could help accelerate initiatives to arrest global warming.

The basic issue has to do with coal.  Quite simply, the more we burn, the faster we destroy the atmosphere. 

"Destroy the atmosphere"?  Really?  Climate change will not "destroy" anything.  It is a phenomenon that could change the atmosphere, not destroy it.

The author of this nonsense is Eric Roston, Bloomberg's go-to guy on climate change.  Roston makes it sound as if one day, we'll be gasping for air as our atmosphere is annihilated by global warming.  But this is the quality of "reporting" on climate change, which is why you literally cannot believe anything you read.

The darkest scenario assumes much more coal[-]burning will take place in this century than is likely to happen, according to the study's authors.  Their first paper, published in May, made it seem [as if] the only people who see more coal use than the Trump administration are climate-scenario designers.  

[dsrtsage]

Women and minorities hardest hit

[armourenthusiast]

"the climate will still destabilize, wreaking havoc on the planet.

As opposed to unstable climate?"

We need a stable genius to figure this out.

[DuncanWaring]

The basic issue has to do with coal. Quite simply, the more we burn, the faster we destroy the atmosphere.

The Powder River coal mines in northeast Wyoming/southeast Montana currently produce about 350 million tons of coal per year, roughly 5% of the overall global output.

That works out to roughly 1 million tons per day.

One million tons per day means 100 freight trains, each made up of 100 cars, each car carrying 100 tons. One of those trains every 15 minutes, 24 hours per day.

There's enough coal there to produce at that rate since the time of Christ, until now, and for another 500 years.

That one deposit is only a small fraction of the overall planet's reserves.

And the reasonable expectation has to be that all that carbon was once in the atmosphere.