4 ms·

Climate apocalypse. We have approximately 4-5 years left to mobilize massive de-carbonation in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change [0]. It's

Climate apocalypse. We have approximately 4-5 years left to mobilize massive de-carbonation in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change [0]. It's already too late to avoid 2C warming. Even if we stopped instantly today the feedback loops have been in gear for years. Small, incremental changes are not what I was hoping for. [0] https://www.earth.com/news/5-years-mitigate-climate-change/ https://www.earth.com/news/5-years-mitigate-climate-change/

whamlastxmas 7y ago
I don't think it's proper to take a single person's interpretation and present it as fact. This hyperbole is what makes people on the fence about climate change roll their eyes and disregard it.
- pier25 7y ago
  I don't think agentultra is being hyperbolic. There is a great uncertainty about feedbacks. It may very well be the case that we don't even have 5 years and we have already passed the point of no return. Even disregarding that, the 2ºC statement is also very probable. See my comments from the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256598
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    It may also very well be the case a meteor strikes earth before I finish writing this comment and kills us all. My point is that debate about climate change needs to come from generally accepted perspectives based on concrete data and interpretations. Instead we have millions of people shouting and parroting unsubstantiated opinions that originated from a single person who's obviously very biased in their perspective. Playing "what if" all day and talking about doomsdays isn't going to help. I don't understand why there isn't a greater focus on the thousands of people who are dying every year right now from pollution caused by fossil fuels. This is undeniable and very actionable and easy to get behind.
    - pier25 7y ago
      The problem is that "generally accepted perspectives based on concrete data and interpretations" in this context usually means the IPCC conclusions, right? The IPCC has been greatly criticized by the scientific community because since it works by consensus over a very large body of work it is always years behind the latest data and science. For example here are the comments from a Nobel prize winner on the IPCC understating the effects of feedbacks on its latest report from 2018: > Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for his work on depletion of the ozone layer, said: “The IPCC report demonstrates that it is still possible to keep the climate relatively safe, provided we muster an unprecedented level of cooperation, extraordinary speed and heroic scale of action. But even with its description of the increasing impacts that lie ahead, the IPCC understates a key risk: that self-reinforcing feedback loops could push the climate system into chaos before we have time to tame our energy system, and the other sources of climate pollution.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-... The IPCC is slowly starting to realize this and their next report coming out in 2021 will show warming is actually accelerating much faster than previously stated. > In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-p...
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      We do have hard data and people are still playing with it to justify themselves. This would be fine if these were isolated examples. But we have people in power and rich doing this. Seriously. Even lax (currently known to be inaccurate - an underestimate) old IPCC model gives problematic conclusions that are against status quo.
tremon 7y ago
I don't think we have 4-5 years left, I think we're already 10 years beyond the point of no return. I'm not a climate scientist so my opinion bears very little weight, but I think we lost the battle when the Siberian permafrost started thawing. In my view, even an instantaneous 100% reduction in carbon emissions (including the sudden disappearance of all cattle) will not stop the northern ice cap from disappearing completely, and the methane deposits under it will easily follow. Because of the location, my expectation is that these emissions will significantly alter the path of the northern jet stream, affecting the climate all over the northern hemisphere. But, hey, what do I know, right?
- agentultra 7y ago
  I don't think you're far off. The IPCC panel will probably adjust their models to take into account the Siberian, Canadian, Alaskan, and Greenland permafrost all melting. And then we may be more certain about how fast we're accelerating towards the worst case scenarios. I agree that we're already beyond the point of no return. It's sad that popular coverage of climate change still makes the claim that we can avoid a 2C increase and that implies we will continue to live as we do now without having to change anything. The 4-5 year mark is a hypothetical amount of time we may have to survive the worst scenarios if we can mobilize and co-ordinate a vast amount of resources and effort to do so. But I don't think it will be modern life as usual in the decade to come. If we can accept that the worst outcomes are likely to happen then imagining what life will be like may help us do something about it. Maybe people will change their attitudes towards consumption and re-organize our social structures around our local communities. Maybe we'll change the way we eat and manage food. Maybe we'll stop pretending that our lives will be an endless parade of novel devices, entertainments, exotic foods, and limitless supplies of fresh water. Maybe we'll stop wrapping every damn thing in plastic.
- rhino369 7y ago
  The "thawed permafrost = permafucked" hysteria is not based on science. The IPCC, etc. include feedback loops into their calculations.
  - tremon 7y ago
Robotbeat 7y ago
It's going to be at least one of the following: incremental changes while we transition (and learn to tolerate the warmer climate), political upheaval and/or civil wars, OR geoengineering. And probably some of each.

whamlastxmas 7y ago

I don't think it's proper to take a single person's interpretation and present it as fact. This hyperbole is what makes people on the fence about climate change roll their eyes and disregard it.

pier25 7y ago
I don't think agentultra is being hyperbolic. There is a great uncertainty about feedbacks. It may very well be the case that we don't even have 5 years and we have already passed the point of no return. Even disregarding that, the 2ºC statement is also very probable. See my comments from the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256598
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  It may also very well be the case a meteor strikes earth before I finish writing this comment and kills us all. My point is that debate about climate change needs to come from generally accepted perspectives based on concrete data and interpretations. Instead we have millions of people shouting and parroting unsubstantiated opinions that originated from a single person who's obviously very biased in their perspective. Playing "what if" all day and talking about doomsdays isn't going to help. I don't understand why there isn't a greater focus on the thousands of people who are dying every year right now from pollution caused by fossil fuels. This is undeniable and very actionable and easy to get behind.
  - pier25 7y ago
    The problem is that "generally accepted perspectives based on concrete data and interpretations" in this context usually means the IPCC conclusions, right? The IPCC has been greatly criticized by the scientific community because since it works by consensus over a very large body of work it is always years behind the latest data and science. For example here are the comments from a Nobel prize winner on the IPCC understating the effects of feedbacks on its latest report from 2018: > Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for his work on depletion of the ozone layer, said: “The IPCC report demonstrates that it is still possible to keep the climate relatively safe, provided we muster an unprecedented level of cooperation, extraordinary speed and heroic scale of action. But even with its description of the increasing impacts that lie ahead, the IPCC understates a key risk: that self-reinforcing feedback loops could push the climate system into chaos before we have time to tame our energy system, and the other sources of climate pollution.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-... The IPCC is slowly starting to realize this and their next report coming out in 2021 will show warming is actually accelerating much faster than previously stated. > In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-p...
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    We do have hard data and people are still playing with it to justify themselves. This would be fine if these were isolated examples. But we have people in power and rich doing this. Seriously. Even lax (currently known to be inaccurate - an underestimate) old IPCC model gives problematic conclusions that are against status quo.

tremon 7y ago

I don't think we have 4-5 years left, I think we're already 10 years beyond the point of no return. I'm not a climate scientist so my opinion bears very little weight, but I think we lost the battle when the Siberian permafrost started thawing. In my view, even an instantaneous 100% reduction in carbon emissions (including the sudden disappearance of all cattle) will not stop the northern ice cap from disappearing completely, and the methane deposits under it will easily follow. Because of the location, my expectation is that these emissions will significantly alter the path of the northern jet stream, affecting the climate all over the northern hemisphere. But, hey, what do I know, right?

agentultra 7y ago
I don't think you're far off. The IPCC panel will probably adjust their models to take into account the Siberian, Canadian, Alaskan, and Greenland permafrost all melting. And then we may be more certain about how fast we're accelerating towards the worst case scenarios. I agree that we're already beyond the point of no return. It's sad that popular coverage of climate change still makes the claim that we can avoid a 2C increase and that implies we will continue to live as we do now without having to change anything. The 4-5 year mark is a hypothetical amount of time we may have to survive the worst scenarios if we can mobilize and co-ordinate a vast amount of resources and effort to do so. But I don't think it will be modern life as usual in the decade to come. If we can accept that the worst outcomes are likely to happen then imagining what life will be like may help us do something about it. Maybe people will change their attitudes towards consumption and re-organize our social structures around our local communities. Maybe we'll change the way we eat and manage food. Maybe we'll stop pretending that our lives will be an endless parade of novel devices, entertainments, exotic foods, and limitless supplies of fresh water. Maybe we'll stop wrapping every damn thing in plastic.
rhino369 7y ago
The "thawed permafrost = permafucked" hysteria is not based on science. The IPCC, etc. include feedback loops into their calculations.
- tremon 7y ago

Robotbeat 7y ago

It's going to be at least one of the following: incremental changes while we transition (and learn to tolerate the warmer climate), political upheaval and/or civil wars, OR geoengineering. And probably some of each.