{"id":10936,"date":"2023-08-21T15:47:52","date_gmt":"2023-08-21T13:47:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.mr-int.ch\/?p=10936"},"modified":"2023-08-21T15:47:53","modified_gmt":"2023-08-21T13:47:53","slug":"updating-the-carbon-fate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.mr-int.ch\/?p=10936&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Updating the Carbon Fate"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

There is no point in counting in detail the carbon dioxide emissions of everyone, or even of each country. They will only decrease as and when fossil fuel consumption is replaced or reduced, which must be achieved by a substantial change in energy supply. And the \u00ab\u00a0Grand Soir\u00a0\u00bb of net-zero-carbon is a long way off, as global emissions continue to rise in order to satisfy everyone’s needs. No solar panel, no wind turbine, no electric battery can be built without fossil fuels. Dependence is at 88%. It makes no sense to ease one’s conscience by paying for low-carbon solutions, because the global game remains a zero-sum affair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After having published an article<\/a> about the fate of carbon in the global environment six years ago, the update presented below shows no fundamental changes. At most, the interpretations and extrapolations made by the experts have changed from report to report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a succinct reminder, the following ten climate-related questions remain unsettled:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Sensitivity of the climate to natural and human factors.
    Correct treatment of feedbacks?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Accumulation or transient discharge of excess heat in the oceans.
    How much is based on established facts and how much on uncertain and imprecise calculations?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Systematic use of models to obtain experimental values.
    How valid are they?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. The real socio-economic impact of global and local warming.
    Is it really that serious?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Scenarios for future emissions, energy use and change.
    How plausible are they? Why is the unimaginable being used as a benchmark?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Systematic attribution of natural events to human-induced climate change.
    True or faked?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Sense of climate urgency.
    True or faked for other purposes?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Validity and feasibility of climate objectives.
    Hubris or a means for social control?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Effectiveness of climate policies.
    Mitigation or adaptation?
    What about the economy?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Reducing all human perspectives on climate issues.
    No other more important priorities?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The point here is not to take the place of the official representatives of the IPCC or of climate researchers. It’s simply that a somewhat attentive observer cannot be satisfied with the climate narrative that is being served up over and over again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t

    \n\t\t\t