29 ms·

Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

226 points by stablemap 8y ago

mtreis86 8y ago
Link to report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/ http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Looks like this is the paper that presents the model for the calculations: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/11/2273/2018/gmd-11-2273-2018.pdf https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/11/2273/2018/gmd-11-2273-20...
- locusm 8y ago
  Source code available too https://github.com/OMS-NetZero/FAIR https://github.com/OMS-NetZero/FAIR
554070 8y ago
Does anyone else feel like we'll fail to make reasonable progress on climate change? I'm naturally inclined towards pessimism, but I feel that the political solutions aren't going to work out and that the market isn't moving fast enough for humanity to get ahead of it. Edit: to clarify, I think that political solutions won't work not because there aren't good ideas or that we couldn't collectively do a lot, but because there's too much money and power held by special interest groups that pollute.
- ianai 8y ago
  After the right wing wave took over the world I think many are concluding no corrective actions to be taken.
  - 554070 8y ago
    True. The worst part is that they won't be around to see the consequences of their actions.
    - ianai 8y ago
      I almost wish for the process to move faster. Maybe then people would take action.
    - polotics 8y ago
      Think again. Medical progress means that many 70 year olds will be alive when the SHTF really gets undeniably started 15-20 years from now.
  - philipov 8y ago
    In the game of Prisoner's Dilemma, if the game is played for only one round, the optimal move is for both players to betray each other. If you modify the game by playing many rounds of the same two players choosing whether to cooperate or betray, cooperation continues as long as neither player knows how long the game will last. The moment either player learns when the last round will be, it once again becomes advantageous to betray, and to do so immediately, before your opponent gains the same information. You want to betray before you are betrayed, but to do so at the last possible moment. I think there's something to be learned there about the connection between climate change, and the charge towards mass surveillance and authoritarian government.
    - ianai 8y ago
      I’m not following. I’ve heard that the change would benefit certain areas of the world. Ie Russia may warm up and gain more hospitable land. For this reason I’ve also heard some nations may be emissing greenhouse gasses.
      - antoinevg 8y ago
        I think philipov is saying that the reason politicians are not acting is because they do not believe any action is possible. So, if they believe no action is possible this also means they view this as the last round in a game of prisoners dilemma they've been forced to play for most of the modern era. So, in their view, there is no more downside to defecting.
        philipov 8y ago
        Yes, precisely. Or, to put it another way, politicians are acting to prepare for climate change. The action they are taking is to tighten control in anticipation of global disaster. Also, I think this game is playing out not just between politicians and populace, but at all scales of society and business, as no individual actor has the power to take corrective action alone, or is otherwise pinned in a Mexican Standoff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff
- hyperbovine 8y ago
  Not without wholesale political change in the US. It will happen but probably not in time to matter if this report is correct :|
- prawn 8y ago
  I feel like the changes are too slow for the majority of people to take any remotely pressing action or vote accordingly. Losing coral reefs sadly won't matter to the majority of people. You can watch Finding Nemo on TV in air-con comfort and ignore the dust bowl outside. I don't think people get a clear picture of how broad the mass migration issues is likely to become.
- NDizzle 8y ago
  China and India have to be on board for reasonable progress to occur.
  - vkou 8y ago
    What would progress look like, in this case? China and India catching up in emissions/capita to the developed world? Or are you expecting them to keep their emissions at a fraction of ours?
  - philliphaydon 8y ago
    China is doing pretty well. Long way to go tho.
  - tzs 8y ago
    As far as climate goes, what matters is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not where they came from. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for varying amount of time, depending on the particular gas. Whatever we finally decide we need to hold warming too, there is some maximum level of greenhouse gases that we can allow without warming going above our limit. If we take that level, and figure out each country's fair share of that, what we'll find is that the West is responsible for way more of the greenhouse gases present than is their fair share (with the US the farthest over its share), and India is way under their fair share. It would not be unreasonable for India to feel that it is unfair that the West used cheap fossil fuels to boost itself to first world status and in the processes went way over their fair quota for greenhouse gases and now wants India to stay way below its fair quota and give up cheap development to balance that. To make it fair, the West would need to subsidize India so that it can afford to become a developed country without having to use the cheap fossil fuels. Another way to think of it would be the West paying India for having used up India's quota for allowed greenhouse gases--essentially a kind of retroactive cap and trade system.
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    India and China both have leadership that acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change and is taking active measures. That would seem like table stakes but unfortunately we live in a world where that's not a given. India produces 20% of electricity from renewable sources, not including large hydro[1]. Including large hydro, it's 29%. In comparison, the US produces only 15% from renewable sources including hydro[2] which, of course, has lots of environmental costs before any energy generation begins. This is admittedly a meaningless factoid but still kind of cool - India has 5 of the 10 largest solar power stations in the world, more than any other nation.[5] The Delhi city government has made it mandatory for government and public institutions to install rooftop solar[6]. This is on top of a government program that provides subsidized loans for rooftop solar on factories.[7] There's plenty of other renewable energy, rainwater harvesting, and recycling programs at various levels of the Indian government - federal, state, and city. I'm not saying all of them will work (it's the government, after all) but it's solid effort, and hard cash being put in. Gasoline costs USD 4.55/gal in Mumbai today[8] - compared to around USD 3.50 in California, which already has the highest gas prices in the continental US. Due to the lower average disposable income in India, this means motorists prioritize fuel economy over comfort, and even safety. India's annual population growth rate is 1.10% - a shade above the global average of 1.09%[3]. It's also been steadily dropping for decades and that trend is expected to continue.[4] China's population growth rate is 0.41% - lower even than the US.[3] The only way India and China can keep from increasing their emissions is by stopping their economic progress. This would effectively keep their respective populations poor, undernourished, and lacking modern amenities such as healthcare, transportation, or entertainment. So what do you mean by "on board" exactly? What other shining exemplars of environmental rectitude can one point at to persuade India and China? What other nations have made, or committed to make, similar lifestyle sacrifices? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertilit... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... 6. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-to-make-delhi-solar-city-1416232 https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-... 7. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-transforms-market-for-rooftop-solar https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-t... 8. https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai
- twblalock 8y ago
  I have zero confidence that enough action will be taken before it is too late. Even if almost every country in the world takes immediate drastic action, all it takes is inaction by a single major polluter to ensure that the negative consequences of climate change will occur anyway. Voters will think, why should we make sacrifices when we will get screwed anyway, because other countries won't take action?
- gns24 8y ago
  To be honest my rational view is that the situation is hopeless. We haven't even managed to stop global emissions increasing annually yet. That's the second derivative of temperature (even ignoring any feedback loops); the rate at which we're causing temperatures to increase is itself still increasing. I disagree about special interest groups being the main problem; political will of the population is just as much of an issue. Even in the UK where the majority of people do believe in climate change, successive governments have failed to increase duty on fuel because of a popular outcry every time they attempt to. I have friends who alternate posts on social media between complaining about a lack of action on climate change and posting photos of their latest intercontinental travel. People are prepared to do quite a lot to look after the planet. What they seem less accepting of is not doing things.
  - smolder 8y ago
    Special interest groups are arguably in control of the political will of people in many ways. In politics, people are told what to think. ISPs have managed to convince some people that net neutrality is a partisan issue when it never was. They have lying politicians and lying tv pundits on their side because they have piles of money, and that's enough to change opinions.
mistrial9 8y ago
California recently completed its 4th Climate Assessment task http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/ http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/
jamesgagan 8y ago
If you are concerned about climate change, stop eating animals. Governments are slow to act, but switching to a plant based diet is something you can do right now. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
- plugger 8y ago
  Rice paddy fields also produce a significant amount of methane as well.
  - gdubs 8y ago
    Step one: get people to eat less meat. Step two: move farming away from monoculture crops.
  - probably_wrong 8y ago
    Your comment helped me put some thoughts in line. Soy is a big reason the loss of biodiversity in my country. People are cutting down trees left and right because soy grows everywhere and pays well. "That's easy", I could say, "just stop planting a single thing". But this doesn't make sense for the farmers, who are asked to give away money to allow (from their POV) rich people to ride more Hummers. So we come with a better answer, "enact and enforce laws protecting native forests", and now we are back where we started, because a problem that we wanted to solve with individual action suddenly requires government intervention. I believe in individual action, as I said in another comment. But I don't think it's an "either/or": we created governments specifically to solve problems like this.
- perty2 8y ago
  We cant stop a grand solar minimum as we go into a new one called the Eddy Minimum. This book details some of the effects we can likely expect to see. https://wordery.com/the-little-ice-age-brian-fagan-9780465022724?currency=GBP&btrck=V1owQUkvdzJmb0N4NVdXRURUQzFsRHJyYkZzeExlamVZcGJlZGQvNTlvRktJWExyVU5TS252ZGZDNURDRnQzUw&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ShoppingGB&msclkid=765eb501f9cf1c18ccfeeebb038386cd https://wordery.com/the-little-ice-age-brian-fagan-978046502...
patrickg_zill 8y ago
The skeptical part of me seems bound to point out that we've been told that it would happen by 2020, or even earlier.
- Smushman 8y ago
  patrickg_zill - this place, since the election, has become a hotbed of downvotes for any rebuttal discussion around climate change and any new thing the US Democratic party suggests (i.e 'forced' time off for men during womens pregnancy - see my comments history for more). Don't feel bad man...
  - tzs 8y ago
    He's getting down voted probably because it was not a useful comment due to vagueness. When were we told it was going to happen by 2020? Who told us this? How widely was it accepted by other scientists? What level of confidence was given to it?
- Angostura 8y ago
  What were we told? That the artic ice would be in retreat and that the permafrost would begin to melt? Sounds as if the predictions were pretty accurate.
danieltillett 8y ago
We are not going to get anywhere until those that benefit from any action pay. Those that will benefit from any action are mostly not even born yet. Imagine if the people of the future living in a trashed world could travel back in time and pay us to do something now. How much would they be willing to pay? Probably far more than it would cost to fix. All they would need to do is invent a time machine and they could come back to now, pay us to fix the problems, and they get to live in an intact world. Given we haven’t had too many visitors from the future flashing the Benjamins around, time machines are likely impossible. We do however have a magic way of allowing the future to pay for actions now as long as we act on their behalf. This magic is called long-term zero-coupon bonds [0]. The idea is we issue a whole lot of zero coupon bonds due in 50 years (or more), use the money to decarbonise the economy and pay off the owners of all the carbon, and the leave it to the future to pay the debt with an intact world. I gave a talk on this idea a bit over 10 years ago which I have up on my blog if anyone is interested [1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-coupon_bond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-coupon_bond 1. https://www.tillett.info/2015/12/13/preventing-global-climate-collapse/ https://www.tillett.info/2015/12/13/preventing-global-climat...
- clay_the_ripper 8y ago
  Interesting, but how is this different from just issuing treasury bonds? I guess my question is, how does it relate to climate specifically? Is the difference just that we issue a crap ton of them now and only use the money to pay for climate related things? I guess the bigger question too is what do we spend them on? Is anyone aware of a feasible, “go to market” plan that could actually “fix” climate change if we had, say, 1 trillion dollars to spend on it? (Or whatever the number is)
  - provolone 8y ago
    Doomsaying is frequently accompanied by monetary schemes.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    I go into more detail on my blog about why zero-coupon bonds. What do we spend it on? The first place is buying up all the fossil fuel and preventing it from being burnt. Paying off the owners of the fossil fuel is the essential step to removing the political opposition to doing something about climate change. Once that is tackled then we just have to scale out the technology we already have to generate energy that doesn't emit greenhouse gases.
usaar333 8y ago
The article seems to paint a rather non-crisis economically, perhaps unintentionally: > The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warming. I guess that's in Fahrenheit, but again.. not really scary numbers. We're talking about two years of ordinary productivity growth being lost over a decade+. Bad, but nowhere close to resulting in the future being worse than the present, much less society ending. For how much we all worry about global warning, why are the estimated GDP numbers not coming in much worse?
- gdubs 8y ago
  I haven’t read the sourced paper yet but the quote is vague; are you sure that’s not annual?
- fsloth 8y ago
  "why are the estimated GDP numbers not coming in much worse?" A guess: Because the hardest hit areas do not contribute as much to GDP. Most of world GDP is created outside of the tropics. The gruesome prediction from this report is that the poor areas next to tropics will come refugess camps unlike anything seen before (think Blade Runner or Judge Dread with the skycrapers replaced by an ocean of tents and shacks). And the rich world will invest in border controls and barbed wire.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Why would you expect this instead of people simply gradually moving inland and continuing to do more or less exactly what they were already doing? The developing world and developed are identical in that population densities are extremely disproportionate. We tend to have very high densities near water and much lower densities inland. This creates a dual effect of magnifying the numeric impact of climate change, but also giving us immense 'safe' buffers. If we view climate change as a sort of terraforming then the primary effect would be to push coastal regions further inland - not to permanently remove them. And even in in the low probability worst case scenarios water levels will begin to plateau off simply because there's a fixed amount of possible water on Earth. This [1] National Geographic article from a while back showed exactly what the world would look like if all the ice melted, resulting the maximal possible increase in sea levels - about 216 feet. The peculiar thing is the world would be reshaped, but it'd mostly be the exact same place. And keep in mind that this would happen over many many decades as the sea levels inched forward, thus giving people time to calmly and orderly adjust. It's not like one day you go to bed and when you wake up New York is New Atlantis. [1] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-s...
Smushman 8y ago
-2 points by Smushman 1 minutes ago -3 points by Smushman 11 minutes ago -4 points by Smushman 13 minutes ago Unfortunately, for one, the politicization and hijacking of the climate change conversation by political parties has destroyed most any chance for a reasonable and neutral analysis on the topic by a layman, which is all I and many people would need. For two, the incredible level of economic and legislative control given to any controlling body named in climate change improvement role give me incredible pause to support that. Think of something like a single world entity, in example the UN, controlling the economies and laws of all nations regarding anything that can affect climate change (thinking cattle and plant farming, electricity, fuel consumption, manufacturing, etc.) Also please don't send me the XKCD article shows that humans contributed to CO2 level again. I am already convinced of CO2 rise, and I know CO2 is supposed to contribute to significantly higher temps. Why hasn't it happened yet? Or lastly try to tell me that I don't need convincing because the scientists have already proved it (Ad hominem and genetic attacks). Sorry - we can do better than that with the internet, can't we?
- Smushman 8y ago
  Amazing! This was downed to -1 in less than 10 seconds. The only logical conclusion is some people must hover over the comments, pruning them to their liking.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 8y ago
    Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and using HN for political flamewar? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  Feeding climate change deniers is the ultimate in “don’t feed the trolls” mistakes but just for funsies, what evidence would it take to convince you that temps are in fact rising?
gdubs 8y ago
I’ve started buying carbon offsets when our family flies (through carbonfund) and it’s a lot cheaper than what I’d imagined. I think requiring airlines to offer carbon offsets directly in the ticket checkout flow would be impactful. I’d go a step further and have people opted-in by default so they have to un-check a box if they really don’t want to spend the extra ten bucks. Also, as others have said: eating less meat is an effective way to lower your carbon footprint.
- konschubert 8y ago
  I don't know how effective these carbon offsets are. Many of them may just be re-planting some forests that would have been planted anyways or may be even playing some more obvious scam.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    You can buy credits here https://www.goldstandard.org/get-involved/make-an-impact https://www.goldstandard.org/get-involved/make-an-impact for projects that have been audited and certified.
    - 2918273756663 8y ago
      That's great, audits and certifications are definitely a way to legitimize incentives! I remember a certain Arthur Andersen being an exemplary model of such a rigorous and trusted auditor, certifying certain projects that intensified incentives to create quite a force for change -- such as the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002.
  - gdubs 8y ago
    Carbonfund was recommended by my airline, and they provide full transparency into which programs your money is going towards, so you can research and decide for yourself.
  - fspoettel 8y ago
    If you are looking for something that is probably not a scam, there is a UN citizen platform for carbon offsets. [0] FWIW the platform is supported by a number of major corporations including Microsoft. [1] [0] https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a-citizen https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a... [1] https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a-company-or-an-organization/climate-neutral-now-signatories https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fersho311 8y ago
My wife and I are turning 30 and our parents are starting to pressure us to have kids. However, we had both decided against having kids because the thought of someone we love worrying about global climate change crisis is too much for us to handle emotionally. We tried explaining our concerns to our parents but they don't seem to give a shit. Other than sending our parents reports like these, any suggestions on how we can convince our parents that having kids and subjecting them to a lifetime of dealing with global warming might not be such a great idea?
- simonbarker87 8y ago
  Don’t bother. It’s your lives, her body and ultimately nothing to do with them. Head over to /r/childfree on reddit to perhaps get some better advice but fundamentally it really has nothing to do with your parents, or anyone else, if you have children and your reasons behind that choice.
  - tomjakubowski 8y ago
    That subreddit seems to be about looking down on people who have kids more than anything.
  - astura 8y ago
    /r/childfree is a an extremely toxic place, I would avoid it. I like the idea of a child free community being CF myself, but that's not a pleasant or positive place.
  - ablation 8y ago
    I wouldn't visit that subreddit. My experience has been that it's an incredibly toxic, polarised echo chamber, like so many subreddits. There are better, more balanced sources for insight and argument on this subject out there, in my experience.
  - fersho311 8y ago
    Went there, couldn't find any valuable insights / discussions. Feels more like a cult than a group of healthy independent thinkers.
root_axis 8y ago
I think we need to start wrestling with the idea that the anticipated climate crisis is impossible to stop and that it's worthwhile to begin preparing to live in a world with a warmer climate. The reality is that most people don't care about climate change and the world's leadership is increasingly hostile to the idea of dealing with it. Even if our leaders were willing, the absolute dominance of private industry in this regard precludes any possibility of progress on the issue of reducing emissions. On the other hand, we might be able to develop technologies that mitigate the impact of a warmer climate or begin developing and researching strategies to take advantage of agricultural possibilities that might be opened up by a warmer climate. The worst thing we can do right now for the populations that will be impacted by this is to assume there is a possibility that we can curb this disaster rather than taking these 40 to 60 years to brace for impact.
- CM30 8y ago
  Can't disagree with this. Short of a one world government with dictatorship esque powers (which would be a very bad idea for other reasons), the chances of people magically changing their lifestyle/society completely changing overnight to fix climate change are pretty slim to none. It's science and technology that'll solve these issues, make it possible to live even in 'extreme' conditions and at some eventual point in the future, either reverse or avoid the issue altogether.
consumer451 8y ago
We need to put a solar shade at L1.[0] That will give us time to switch to a renewable electric economy, before hitting the catastrophic methane release from permafrost thaw.[1] At 7C, mathematical modeling [2] shows that we may lose two thirds of our oxygen generation (plankton) which could lead to complete human extinction within ~3600 years.[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11538-015-0126-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11538-015-0126-... [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12576-016-0501-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12576-016-0501-0
- andygates 8y ago
  But the sunshade is megascale engineering that you'd have to get everyone in on - and quickly, so that's a real project risk, even assuming it's worthwhile. And the clathrate gun was overhyped.
  - consumer451 8y ago
    Out of all geoengineering solutions that I am aware of, the sunshade is the most likely to work, and with the least drawbacks as it is the only truly global solution. It is also pretty simple physics as compared to other solutions which involve complex system modeling and unknown side effects. All of the solutions require everyone on board, and quickly. The biggest issue is cost. At Falcon heavy prices, getting the requisite 20 million tons to L1 approaches 100 trillion dollars, according to my back of the napkin calculations. BFR may get that down an order of magnitude. The only way to pay for something like that is the really hard part, a global financial transaction tax, or some similar scheme. Could you point me to anything showing that the methane release threat is overblown? I would love that reassurance. But even the Trump administration acknowledges 4C by 2100, there is no reason to think that it would stop there.
rbrbr 8y ago
People are too slow with change. Our worldly scenario is unique because we can basically predict our end now. Like weather forecast becomes more precise the closer it gets to the forecasted day, we know more precisely how and when we will end every day. And like weather, practically there is little we can (will) do to change it.
rdl 8y ago
Climate engineering seems like a better bet than massive political/economic change across the entire world in advance of clear harm. It is relatively easy (but still difficult in an absolute sense) to get support in sufficiently rich countries to handle clearly demonstrated, immediate threats — clean air, clean water, removal of litter, etc. These also tend to have relatively low costs, and the costs they do impose tend to be on large industries which also have pricing power to pass it along. There have definitely been successful global environmental actions. The CFC/Ozone thing was probably the most clear; it was a pretty substantial and demonstrable harm, and the costs of switching were relatively low. (It was painful for fire suppression, since halon is still superior to alternatives, and did require a lot of special stuff around auto air conditioners, but it was basically industries which could pass along costs.) Acid rain/sulfur dioxide/etc was a lot harder because it crossed jurisdictional boundaries, but within the US it was at least pretty easy to use the federal level. Hasn’t worked as well with China... CO2 has the problems of an indirect link between the pollution and harms (merely raising CO2 in the air is fine; the issue is science showing a few levels downstream this is a problem, and it isn’t as clear as most other forms of pollution.). It is also much more fundamentally tied to economic activity, and alternatives have much higher costs (including higher forms of other pollution due to decreased efficiency...), and is pretty widely distributed across consumers and smaller businesses. As well, a lot of the problem is the 3-4B people living at a lower standard of living who if they industrialize the same way will make 50% reductions in the other 3-4B pretty meaningless. I’d rather bet on climate engineering.
wiz21c 8y ago
FTA : >>>Ms. Warrick said her organization intends to campaign for governments to invest in carbon capture technology. Such technology, which is currently too expensive for commercial use, could allow coal to continue to be widely used. I hope we'll talk about the pulmonary diseases her family will get in some years second point : this post lasted less than 24 hours on HN's home page. It's a telling sign.
Balgair 8y ago
That's… well.. bleak. At BEST 1.5 C uptick by 2040? Am I reading that right? That is really not good. Like, as in, really bad, and that is the most optimistic report they can generate? It’s hard to not feel, well, despair here. First, good on the scientists for keeping up with the reporting and modeling. That’s not an easy job. Second, we all know it matters for fuck all. Donny can hardly twit a full sentence, let alone understand anything in that report. If democracy is running out the clock, then autocracy is gumming the pacifier. But, I dunno man. It just feels like we’re closing up the house. Maybe it’s because I just moved out of a bad apartment, but I get that feeling here too. Like, the walls were shoddy, the electrical system was haywire, the neighbors were loud and overcrowding the place, the constant noise was too much, and the fights, oh the fights just outside my bedroom window. It was just nutz. But it feels like moving out of that place, like closing down the house of a recently deceased loved one. There is all the history in a place, all these things and pictures that people made and cherished. But there is no-one left to love them anymore. You’re cleaning out your now dead grandma’s stuff, going through photos that you’ve no idea about, if she really thought well of the people or the place in it, those clothes of your long dead grandfather” These were his dress blues from when he just got out” Maybe he’s buried in another set, but only grandma would know and she is gone. And you know it’s important that someone know if Joe is resting in his blues or not, but no-one will know ever again. That feeling of a deep clouded sea; you know it goes down down down, but you’ve no idea how deep or what leviathans of a life are flitting about in there, and the light is going out and the air is cooling and the fog is rolling in and you have to go back to the docks and you know you’ll never be back out there to that spot of ocean. It’s that final echoing feeling of that dark, dingy apartment. You had so much emotion there, so much life, not all of it bad. You know the floorboards that creak just so, the time that the garbage company comes in the mornings, how your cat really loves that one warm sport near the equinoxes. But now the musty smell of the shower mixed with the bleach and it’s…. over. The carpets are cleaned and all the fibers lay one way and the other, making dark and light colors from the reflected glow of the blinded window. Somehow the background noise of the crying babies next door is gone, the street murmurs are like ghosts and drum along. You can hear your shoes slap along for the first time ever. All is as you found it, and there is no life you recognize there now. It’s colder on your cheeks. That’s the feeling that I get with these climate reports. Like I am just supposed to be a person that is destined to clean up the house, move out the stuff, as best I can, quietly, mournfully. Like, I am, just here to witness it all, like the bottom of the 9th when the home team is down by 7 and everyone has already gone home in late September, the pennant race long lost, the hopes of summer gone. The lights are still bright as the dark moves in, illuminating a field that everyone is just out on, doing the motions. Like, just sitting there in the stands, hoping, but knowing the game is over. That my job is just to record the score, for the books, that maybe 10 people will ever look at. Trying to secret away scrolls from the Ostrogoths, for a brighter time. I’m hoping that being a witness means something for the future. That acting like Samuel Pepys will make me the next one, because I know it’s so fantastically unlikely that I will be, but I’ve nothing else to do really. Like walking around empty streets after the bars close and the rain lets up, neon reflecting off the asphalt. I know the game’s not over, but I can’t help but sigh with each out. I can’t help but linger in the last darkness of the cleaned house, that single light left to turn off. I can help but just wipe my face as the boat hums back into the docks, not knowing if the salt is from the water or a tear.
artur_makly 8y ago
Oh but this gets better! This is a great dissertation on how the GeoPolitics will play this little game out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY - by Gwynne Dyer

226 points by stablemap 8y ago

Link to report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/ http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Looks like this is the paper that presents the model for the calculations: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/11/2273/2018/gmd-11-2273-2018.pdf https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/11/2273/2018/gmd-11-2273-20...

locusm 8y ago
Source code available too https://github.com/OMS-NetZero/FAIR https://github.com/OMS-NetZero/FAIR

554070 8y ago

Does anyone else feel like we'll fail to make reasonable progress on climate change? I'm naturally inclined towards pessimism, but I feel that the political solutions aren't going to work out and that the market isn't moving fast enough for humanity to get ahead of it. Edit: to clarify, I think that political solutions won't work not because there aren't good ideas or that we couldn't collectively do a lot, but because there's too much money and power held by special interest groups that pollute.

ianai 8y ago
After the right wing wave took over the world I think many are concluding no corrective actions to be taken.
- 554070 8y ago
  True. The worst part is that they won't be around to see the consequences of their actions.
  - ianai 8y ago
    I almost wish for the process to move faster. Maybe then people would take action.
  - polotics 8y ago
    Think again. Medical progress means that many 70 year olds will be alive when the SHTF really gets undeniably started 15-20 years from now.
- philipov 8y ago
  In the game of Prisoner's Dilemma, if the game is played for only one round, the optimal move is for both players to betray each other. If you modify the game by playing many rounds of the same two players choosing whether to cooperate or betray, cooperation continues as long as neither player knows how long the game will last. The moment either player learns when the last round will be, it once again becomes advantageous to betray, and to do so immediately, before your opponent gains the same information. You want to betray before you are betrayed, but to do so at the last possible moment. I think there's something to be learned there about the connection between climate change, and the charge towards mass surveillance and authoritarian government.
  - ianai 8y ago
    I’m not following. I’ve heard that the change would benefit certain areas of the world. Ie Russia may warm up and gain more hospitable land. For this reason I’ve also heard some nations may be emissing greenhouse gasses.
    - antoinevg 8y ago
      I think philipov is saying that the reason politicians are not acting is because they do not believe any action is possible. So, if they believe no action is possible this also means they view this as the last round in a game of prisoners dilemma they've been forced to play for most of the modern era. So, in their view, there is no more downside to defecting.
      - philipov 8y ago
        Yes, precisely. Or, to put it another way, politicians are acting to prepare for climate change. The action they are taking is to tighten control in anticipation of global disaster. Also, I think this game is playing out not just between politicians and populace, but at all scales of society and business, as no individual actor has the power to take corrective action alone, or is otherwise pinned in a Mexican Standoff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff
hyperbovine 8y ago
Not without wholesale political change in the US. It will happen but probably not in time to matter if this report is correct :|
prawn 8y ago
I feel like the changes are too slow for the majority of people to take any remotely pressing action or vote accordingly. Losing coral reefs sadly won't matter to the majority of people. You can watch Finding Nemo on TV in air-con comfort and ignore the dust bowl outside. I don't think people get a clear picture of how broad the mass migration issues is likely to become.
NDizzle 8y ago
China and India have to be on board for reasonable progress to occur.
- vkou 8y ago
  What would progress look like, in this case? China and India catching up in emissions/capita to the developed world? Or are you expecting them to keep their emissions at a fraction of ours?
- philliphaydon 8y ago
  China is doing pretty well. Long way to go tho.
- tzs 8y ago
  As far as climate goes, what matters is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not where they came from. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for varying amount of time, depending on the particular gas. Whatever we finally decide we need to hold warming too, there is some maximum level of greenhouse gases that we can allow without warming going above our limit. If we take that level, and figure out each country's fair share of that, what we'll find is that the West is responsible for way more of the greenhouse gases present than is their fair share (with the US the farthest over its share), and India is way under their fair share. It would not be unreasonable for India to feel that it is unfair that the West used cheap fossil fuels to boost itself to first world status and in the processes went way over their fair quota for greenhouse gases and now wants India to stay way below its fair quota and give up cheap development to balance that. To make it fair, the West would need to subsidize India so that it can afford to become a developed country without having to use the cheap fossil fuels. Another way to think of it would be the West paying India for having used up India's quota for allowed greenhouse gases--essentially a kind of retroactive cap and trade system.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  India and China both have leadership that acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change and is taking active measures. That would seem like table stakes but unfortunately we live in a world where that's not a given. India produces 20% of electricity from renewable sources, not including large hydro[1]. Including large hydro, it's 29%. In comparison, the US produces only 15% from renewable sources including hydro[2] which, of course, has lots of environmental costs before any energy generation begins. This is admittedly a meaningless factoid but still kind of cool - India has 5 of the 10 largest solar power stations in the world, more than any other nation.[5] The Delhi city government has made it mandatory for government and public institutions to install rooftop solar[6]. This is on top of a government program that provides subsidized loans for rooftop solar on factories.[7] There's plenty of other renewable energy, rainwater harvesting, and recycling programs at various levels of the Indian government - federal, state, and city. I'm not saying all of them will work (it's the government, after all) but it's solid effort, and hard cash being put in. Gasoline costs USD 4.55/gal in Mumbai today[8] - compared to around USD 3.50 in California, which already has the highest gas prices in the continental US. Due to the lower average disposable income in India, this means motorists prioritize fuel economy over comfort, and even safety. India's annual population growth rate is 1.10% - a shade above the global average of 1.09%[3]. It's also been steadily dropping for decades and that trend is expected to continue.[4] China's population growth rate is 0.41% - lower even than the US.[3] The only way India and China can keep from increasing their emissions is by stopping their economic progress. This would effectively keep their respective populations poor, undernourished, and lacking modern amenities such as healthcare, transportation, or entertainment. So what do you mean by "on board" exactly? What other shining exemplars of environmental rectitude can one point at to persuade India and China? What other nations have made, or committed to make, similar lifestyle sacrifices? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertilit... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... 6. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-to-make-delhi-solar-city-1416232 https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-... 7. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-transforms-market-for-rooftop-solar https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-t... 8. https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai
twblalock 8y ago
I have zero confidence that enough action will be taken before it is too late. Even if almost every country in the world takes immediate drastic action, all it takes is inaction by a single major polluter to ensure that the negative consequences of climate change will occur anyway. Voters will think, why should we make sacrifices when we will get screwed anyway, because other countries won't take action?
gns24 8y ago
To be honest my rational view is that the situation is hopeless. We haven't even managed to stop global emissions increasing annually yet. That's the second derivative of temperature (even ignoring any feedback loops); the rate at which we're causing temperatures to increase is itself still increasing. I disagree about special interest groups being the main problem; political will of the population is just as much of an issue. Even in the UK where the majority of people do believe in climate change, successive governments have failed to increase duty on fuel because of a popular outcry every time they attempt to. I have friends who alternate posts on social media between complaining about a lack of action on climate change and posting photos of their latest intercontinental travel. People are prepared to do quite a lot to look after the planet. What they seem less accepting of is not doing things.
- smolder 8y ago
  Special interest groups are arguably in control of the political will of people in many ways. In politics, people are told what to think. ISPs have managed to convince some people that net neutrality is a partisan issue when it never was. They have lying politicians and lying tv pundits on their side because they have piles of money, and that's enough to change opinions.

mistrial9 8y ago

California recently completed its 4th Climate Assessment task http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/ http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/

jamesgagan 8y ago

If you are concerned about climate change, stop eating animals. Governments are slow to act, but switching to a plant based diet is something you can do right now. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

plugger 8y ago
Rice paddy fields also produce a significant amount of methane as well.
- gdubs 8y ago
  Step one: get people to eat less meat. Step two: move farming away from monoculture crops.
- probably_wrong 8y ago
  Your comment helped me put some thoughts in line. Soy is a big reason the loss of biodiversity in my country. People are cutting down trees left and right because soy grows everywhere and pays well. "That's easy", I could say, "just stop planting a single thing". But this doesn't make sense for the farmers, who are asked to give away money to allow (from their POV) rich people to ride more Hummers. So we come with a better answer, "enact and enforce laws protecting native forests", and now we are back where we started, because a problem that we wanted to solve with individual action suddenly requires government intervention. I believe in individual action, as I said in another comment. But I don't think it's an "either/or": we created governments specifically to solve problems like this.
perty2 8y ago
We cant stop a grand solar minimum as we go into a new one called the Eddy Minimum. This book details some of the effects we can likely expect to see. https://wordery.com/the-little-ice-age-brian-fagan-9780465022724?currency=GBP&btrck=V1owQUkvdzJmb0N4NVdXRURUQzFsRHJyYkZzeExlamVZcGJlZGQvNTlvRktJWExyVU5TS252ZGZDNURDRnQzUw&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ShoppingGB&msclkid=765eb501f9cf1c18ccfeeebb038386cd https://wordery.com/the-little-ice-age-brian-fagan-978046502...

patrickg_zill 8y ago

The skeptical part of me seems bound to point out that we've been told that it would happen by 2020, or even earlier.

Smushman 8y ago
patrickg_zill - this place, since the election, has become a hotbed of downvotes for any rebuttal discussion around climate change and any new thing the US Democratic party suggests (i.e 'forced' time off for men during womens pregnancy - see my comments history for more). Don't feel bad man...
- tzs 8y ago
  He's getting down voted probably because it was not a useful comment due to vagueness. When were we told it was going to happen by 2020? Who told us this? How widely was it accepted by other scientists? What level of confidence was given to it?
Angostura 8y ago
What were we told? That the artic ice would be in retreat and that the permafrost would begin to melt? Sounds as if the predictions were pretty accurate.

danieltillett 8y ago

We are not going to get anywhere until those that benefit from any action pay. Those that will benefit from any action are mostly not even born yet. Imagine if the people of the future living in a trashed world could travel back in time and pay us to do something now. How much would they be willing to pay? Probably far more than it would cost to fix. All they would need to do is invent a time machine and they could come back to now, pay us to fix the problems, and they get to live in an intact world. Given we haven’t had too many visitors from the future flashing the Benjamins around, time machines are likely impossible. We do however have a magic way of allowing the future to pay for actions now as long as we act on their behalf. This magic is called long-term zero-coupon bonds [0]. The idea is we issue a whole lot of zero coupon bonds due in 50 years (or more), use the money to decarbonise the economy and pay off the owners of all the carbon, and the leave it to the future to pay the debt with an intact world. I gave a talk on this idea a bit over 10 years ago which I have up on my blog if anyone is interested [1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-coupon_bond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-coupon_bond 1. https://www.tillett.info/2015/12/13/preventing-global-climate-collapse/ https://www.tillett.info/2015/12/13/preventing-global-climat...

clay_the_ripper 8y ago
Interesting, but how is this different from just issuing treasury bonds? I guess my question is, how does it relate to climate specifically? Is the difference just that we issue a crap ton of them now and only use the money to pay for climate related things? I guess the bigger question too is what do we spend them on? Is anyone aware of a feasible, “go to market” plan that could actually “fix” climate change if we had, say, 1 trillion dollars to spend on it? (Or whatever the number is)
- provolone 8y ago
  Doomsaying is frequently accompanied by monetary schemes.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  I go into more detail on my blog about why zero-coupon bonds. What do we spend it on? The first place is buying up all the fossil fuel and preventing it from being burnt. Paying off the owners of the fossil fuel is the essential step to removing the political opposition to doing something about climate change. Once that is tackled then we just have to scale out the technology we already have to generate energy that doesn't emit greenhouse gases.

usaar333 8y ago

The article seems to paint a rather non-crisis economically, perhaps unintentionally: > The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warming. I guess that's in Fahrenheit, but again.. not really scary numbers. We're talking about two years of ordinary productivity growth being lost over a decade+. Bad, but nowhere close to resulting in the future being worse than the present, much less society ending. For how much we all worry about global warning, why are the estimated GDP numbers not coming in much worse?

gdubs 8y ago
I haven’t read the sourced paper yet but the quote is vague; are you sure that’s not annual?
fsloth 8y ago
"why are the estimated GDP numbers not coming in much worse?" A guess: Because the hardest hit areas do not contribute as much to GDP. Most of world GDP is created outside of the tropics. The gruesome prediction from this report is that the poor areas next to tropics will come refugess camps unlike anything seen before (think Blade Runner or Judge Dread with the skycrapers replaced by an ocean of tents and shacks). And the rich world will invest in border controls and barbed wire.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Why would you expect this instead of people simply gradually moving inland and continuing to do more or less exactly what they were already doing? The developing world and developed are identical in that population densities are extremely disproportionate. We tend to have very high densities near water and much lower densities inland. This creates a dual effect of magnifying the numeric impact of climate change, but also giving us immense 'safe' buffers. If we view climate change as a sort of terraforming then the primary effect would be to push coastal regions further inland - not to permanently remove them. And even in in the low probability worst case scenarios water levels will begin to plateau off simply because there's a fixed amount of possible water on Earth. This [1] National Geographic article from a while back showed exactly what the world would look like if all the ice melted, resulting the maximal possible increase in sea levels - about 216 feet. The peculiar thing is the world would be reshaped, but it'd mostly be the exact same place. And keep in mind that this would happen over many many decades as the sea levels inched forward, thus giving people time to calmly and orderly adjust. It's not like one day you go to bed and when you wake up New York is New Atlantis. [1] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-s...

Smushman 8y ago

-2 points by Smushman 1 minutes ago -3 points by Smushman 11 minutes ago -4 points by Smushman 13 minutes ago Unfortunately, for one, the politicization and hijacking of the climate change conversation by political parties has destroyed most any chance for a reasonable and neutral analysis on the topic by a layman, which is all I and many people would need. For two, the incredible level of economic and legislative control given to any controlling body named in climate change improvement role give me incredible pause to support that. Think of something like a single world entity, in example the UN, controlling the economies and laws of all nations regarding anything that can affect climate change (thinking cattle and plant farming, electricity, fuel consumption, manufacturing, etc.) Also please don't send me the XKCD article shows that humans contributed to CO2 level again. I am already convinced of CO2 rise, and I know CO2 is supposed to contribute to significantly higher temps. Why hasn't it happened yet? Or lastly try to tell me that I don't need convincing because the scientists have already proved it (Ad hominem and genetic attacks). Sorry - we can do better than that with the internet, can't we?

Smushman 8y ago
Amazing! This was downed to -1 in less than 10 seconds. The only logical conclusion is some people must hover over the comments, pruning them to their liking.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 8y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and using HN for political flamewar? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
kasey_junk 8y ago
Feeding climate change deniers is the ultimate in “don’t feed the trolls” mistakes but just for funsies, what evidence would it take to convince you that temps are in fact rising?

gdubs 8y ago

I’ve started buying carbon offsets when our family flies (through carbonfund) and it’s a lot cheaper than what I’d imagined. I think requiring airlines to offer carbon offsets directly in the ticket checkout flow would be impactful. I’d go a step further and have people opted-in by default so they have to un-check a box if they really don’t want to spend the extra ten bucks. Also, as others have said: eating less meat is an effective way to lower your carbon footprint.

konschubert 8y ago
I don't know how effective these carbon offsets are. Many of them may just be re-planting some forests that would have been planted anyways or may be even playing some more obvious scam.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  You can buy credits here https://www.goldstandard.org/get-involved/make-an-impact https://www.goldstandard.org/get-involved/make-an-impact for projects that have been audited and certified.
  - 2918273756663 8y ago
    That's great, audits and certifications are definitely a way to legitimize incentives! I remember a certain Arthur Andersen being an exemplary model of such a rigorous and trusted auditor, certifying certain projects that intensified incentives to create quite a force for change -- such as the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002.
- gdubs 8y ago
  Carbonfund was recommended by my airline, and they provide full transparency into which programs your money is going towards, so you can research and decide for yourself.
- fspoettel 8y ago
  If you are looking for something that is probably not a scam, there is a UN citizen platform for carbon offsets. [0] FWIW the platform is supported by a number of major corporations including Microsoft. [1] [0] https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a-citizen https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a... [1] https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a-company-or-an-organization/climate-neutral-now-signatories https://unfccc.int/climate-action/climate-neutral-now/i-am-a...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fersho311 8y ago

My wife and I are turning 30 and our parents are starting to pressure us to have kids. However, we had both decided against having kids because the thought of someone we love worrying about global climate change crisis is too much for us to handle emotionally. We tried explaining our concerns to our parents but they don't seem to give a shit. Other than sending our parents reports like these, any suggestions on how we can convince our parents that having kids and subjecting them to a lifetime of dealing with global warming might not be such a great idea?

simonbarker87 8y ago
Don’t bother. It’s your lives, her body and ultimately nothing to do with them. Head over to /r/childfree on reddit to perhaps get some better advice but fundamentally it really has nothing to do with your parents, or anyone else, if you have children and your reasons behind that choice.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  That subreddit seems to be about looking down on people who have kids more than anything.
- astura 8y ago
  /r/childfree is a an extremely toxic place, I would avoid it. I like the idea of a child free community being CF myself, but that's not a pleasant or positive place.
- ablation 8y ago
  I wouldn't visit that subreddit. My experience has been that it's an incredibly toxic, polarised echo chamber, like so many subreddits. There are better, more balanced sources for insight and argument on this subject out there, in my experience.
- fersho311 8y ago
  Went there, couldn't find any valuable insights / discussions. Feels more like a cult than a group of healthy independent thinkers.

root_axis 8y ago

I think we need to start wrestling with the idea that the anticipated climate crisis is impossible to stop and that it's worthwhile to begin preparing to live in a world with a warmer climate. The reality is that most people don't care about climate change and the world's leadership is increasingly hostile to the idea of dealing with it. Even if our leaders were willing, the absolute dominance of private industry in this regard precludes any possibility of progress on the issue of reducing emissions. On the other hand, we might be able to develop technologies that mitigate the impact of a warmer climate or begin developing and researching strategies to take advantage of agricultural possibilities that might be opened up by a warmer climate. The worst thing we can do right now for the populations that will be impacted by this is to assume there is a possibility that we can curb this disaster rather than taking these 40 to 60 years to brace for impact.

CM30 8y ago
Can't disagree with this. Short of a one world government with dictatorship esque powers (which would be a very bad idea for other reasons), the chances of people magically changing their lifestyle/society completely changing overnight to fix climate change are pretty slim to none. It's science and technology that'll solve these issues, make it possible to live even in 'extreme' conditions and at some eventual point in the future, either reverse or avoid the issue altogether.

consumer451 8y ago

We need to put a solar shade at L1.[0] That will give us time to switch to a renewable electric economy, before hitting the catastrophic methane release from permafrost thaw.[1] At 7C, mathematical modeling [2] shows that we may lose two thirds of our oxygen generation (plankton) which could lead to complete human extinction within ~3600 years.[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11538-015-0126-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11538-015-0126-... [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12576-016-0501-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12576-016-0501-0

andygates 8y ago
But the sunshade is megascale engineering that you'd have to get everyone in on - and quickly, so that's a real project risk, even assuming it's worthwhile. And the clathrate gun was overhyped.
- consumer451 8y ago
  Out of all geoengineering solutions that I am aware of, the sunshade is the most likely to work, and with the least drawbacks as it is the only truly global solution. It is also pretty simple physics as compared to other solutions which involve complex system modeling and unknown side effects. All of the solutions require everyone on board, and quickly. The biggest issue is cost. At Falcon heavy prices, getting the requisite 20 million tons to L1 approaches 100 trillion dollars, according to my back of the napkin calculations. BFR may get that down an order of magnitude. The only way to pay for something like that is the really hard part, a global financial transaction tax, or some similar scheme. Could you point me to anything showing that the methane release threat is overblown? I would love that reassurance. But even the Trump administration acknowledges 4C by 2100, there is no reason to think that it would stop there.

rbrbr 8y ago

People are too slow with change. Our worldly scenario is unique because we can basically predict our end now. Like weather forecast becomes more precise the closer it gets to the forecasted day, we know more precisely how and when we will end every day. And like weather, practically there is little we can (will) do to change it.

rdl 8y ago

Climate engineering seems like a better bet than massive political/economic change across the entire world in advance of clear harm. It is relatively easy (but still difficult in an absolute sense) to get support in sufficiently rich countries to handle clearly demonstrated, immediate threats — clean air, clean water, removal of litter, etc. These also tend to have relatively low costs, and the costs they do impose tend to be on large industries which also have pricing power to pass it along. There have definitely been successful global environmental actions. The CFC/Ozone thing was probably the most clear; it was a pretty substantial and demonstrable harm, and the costs of switching were relatively low. (It was painful for fire suppression, since halon is still superior to alternatives, and did require a lot of special stuff around auto air conditioners, but it was basically industries which could pass along costs.) Acid rain/sulfur dioxide/etc was a lot harder because it crossed jurisdictional boundaries, but within the US it was at least pretty easy to use the federal level. Hasn’t worked as well with China... CO2 has the problems of an indirect link between the pollution and harms (merely raising CO2 in the air is fine; the issue is science showing a few levels downstream this is a problem, and it isn’t as clear as most other forms of pollution.). It is also much more fundamentally tied to economic activity, and alternatives have much higher costs (including higher forms of other pollution due to decreased efficiency...), and is pretty widely distributed across consumers and smaller businesses. As well, a lot of the problem is the 3-4B people living at a lower standard of living who if they industrialize the same way will make 50% reductions in the other 3-4B pretty meaningless. I’d rather bet on climate engineering.

wiz21c 8y ago

FTA : >>>Ms. Warrick said her organization intends to campaign for governments to invest in carbon capture technology. Such technology, which is currently too expensive for commercial use, could allow coal to continue to be widely used. I hope we'll talk about the pulmonary diseases her family will get in some years second point : this post lasted less than 24 hours on HN's home page. It's a telling sign.

Balgair 8y ago

That's… well.. bleak. At BEST 1.5 C uptick by 2040? Am I reading that right? That is really not good. Like, as in, really bad, and that is the most optimistic report they can generate? It’s hard to not feel, well, despair here. First, good on the scientists for keeping up with the reporting and modeling. That’s not an easy job. Second, we all know it matters for fuck all. Donny can hardly twit a full sentence, let alone understand anything in that report. If democracy is running out the clock, then autocracy is gumming the pacifier. But, I dunno man. It just feels like we’re closing up the house. Maybe it’s because I just moved out of a bad apartment, but I get that feeling here too. Like, the walls were shoddy, the electrical system was haywire, the neighbors were loud and overcrowding the place, the constant noise was too much, and the fights, oh the fights just outside my bedroom window. It was just nutz. But it feels like moving out of that place, like closing down the house of a recently deceased loved one. There is all the history in a place, all these things and pictures that people made and cherished. But there is no-one left to love them anymore. You’re cleaning out your now dead grandma’s stuff, going through photos that you’ve no idea about, if she really thought well of the people or the place in it, those clothes of your long dead grandfather” These were his dress blues from when he just got out” Maybe he’s buried in another set, but only grandma would know and she is gone. And you know it’s important that someone know if Joe is resting in his blues or not, but no-one will know ever again. That feeling of a deep clouded sea; you know it goes down down down, but you’ve no idea how deep or what leviathans of a life are flitting about in there, and the light is going out and the air is cooling and the fog is rolling in and you have to go back to the docks and you know you’ll never be back out there to that spot of ocean. It’s that final echoing feeling of that dark, dingy apartment. You had so much emotion there, so much life, not all of it bad. You know the floorboards that creak just so, the time that the garbage company comes in the mornings, how your cat really loves that one warm sport near the equinoxes. But now the musty smell of the shower mixed with the bleach and it’s…. over. The carpets are cleaned and all the fibers lay one way and the other, making dark and light colors from the reflected glow of the blinded window. Somehow the background noise of the crying babies next door is gone, the street murmurs are like ghosts and drum along. You can hear your shoes slap along for the first time ever. All is as you found it, and there is no life you recognize there now. It’s colder on your cheeks. That’s the feeling that I get with these climate reports. Like I am just supposed to be a person that is destined to clean up the house, move out the stuff, as best I can, quietly, mournfully. Like, I am, just here to witness it all, like the bottom of the 9th when the home team is down by 7 and everyone has already gone home in late September, the pennant race long lost, the hopes of summer gone. The lights are still bright as the dark moves in, illuminating a field that everyone is just out on, doing the motions. Like, just sitting there in the stands, hoping, but knowing the game is over. That my job is just to record the score, for the books, that maybe 10 people will ever look at. Trying to secret away scrolls from the Ostrogoths, for a brighter time. I’m hoping that being a witness means something for the future. That acting like Samuel Pepys will make me the next one, because I know it’s so fantastically unlikely that I will be, but I’ve nothing else to do really. Like walking around empty streets after the bars close and the rain lets up, neon reflecting off the asphalt. I know the game’s not over, but I can’t help but sigh with each out. I can’t help but linger in the last darkness of the cleaned house, that single light left to turn off. I can help but just wipe my face as the boat hums back into the docks, not knowing if the salt is from the water or a tear.

artur_makly 8y ago

Oh but this gets better! This is a great dissertation on how the GeoPolitics will play this little game out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY - by Gwynne Dyer