4 ms·

Hmmm, from the article: When the IPCC’s fifth assessment report was published in 2013, it estimated that such a doubling of CO2 was likely to produce warming w

Hmmm, from the article: When the IPCC’s fifth assessment report was published in 2013, it estimated that such a doubling of CO2 was likely to produce warming within the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C as the Earth reaches a new equilibrium. However, preliminary estimates calculated from the latest global climate models (being used in the current IPCC assessment, due out in 2021) are far higher than with the previous generation of models. Early reports are predicting that a doubling of CO2 may in fact produce between 2.8 and 5.8°C of warming. Incredibly, at least eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity of 5°C or warmer. ... Even achieving the most ambitious goal of 1.5°C will see the further destruction of between 70 and 90 per cent of reef-building corals compared to today, according to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”, released last October. With 2°C of warming, a staggering 99 per cent of tropical coral reefs disappear. An entire component of the Earth’s biosphere – our planetary life support system – would be eliminated. The knock-on effects on the 25 per cent of all marine life that depends on coral reefs would be profound and immeasurable. ... But these days my grief is rapidly being superseded by rage. Volcanically explosive rage. Because in the very same IPCC report that outlines the details of the impending apocalypse, the climate science community clearly stated that limiting warming to 1.5°C is geophysically possible. Past emissions alone are unlikely to raise global average temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC report states that any further warming beyond the 1°C already recorded would likely be less than 0.5°C over the next 20 to 30 years, if all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were reduced to zero immediately. That is, if we act urgently, it is technically feasible to turn things around. The only thing missing is strong global policy.

11235853211 7y ago
Direct this rage in a productive manner. There is environmental progress in reform, but it will not change the core power dynamic. The police kill and enslave with impunity, corporations will destroy the lands and waters we rely on for food and sustenance. How can we eat if our lands are destroyed for profit? Revolution will bring our societies together and halt the destruction of our planet.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  > Direct this rage in a productive manner. There is environmental progress in reform, but it will not change the core power dynamic. The police kill and enslave with impunity, corporations will destroy the lands and waters we rely on for food and sustenance. How can we eat if our lands are destroyed for profit? Revolution will bring our societies together and halt the destruction of our planet. I disagree with basically every point you made, but i wonder if extremist lunacy like this might be a necessary evil to punch through the inertia keeping us driving off a cliff, together and and globally. If the rule we followed brought us here, of what use was the rule?
  - 11235853211 7y ago
    It's not extremist nor lunacy if your people are being killed and your own backyard is being poisoned. It is standing up for your rights as a human being. Revolution has time and time again been the way our societies evolve. If the American Revolution taught us anything, it's that our people can rise against their rulers and succeed.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Revolution will bring our societies together That's... one possible outcome. (Hat tip to the "Sunset Grille" webcomic, where I stole this line from a character.)
- 20150327ASG 7y ago
  “The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” ~Utah Phillips Inb4 pedant quibbles "the planet itself is not dying." Yeah, but we and our fellow creatures are dying. It should be understood that is what was meant.
mythrwy 7y ago
Question about reef building coral. I live literally on top of an old coral reef. In the desert. This area was under an ocean 10's of millions of years ago. As the earth warms won't coral simple colonize along the new coastline? Why will they suddenly be gone? (there may be an answer... I just don't know what it would be).
- 23throwaway23 7y ago
  So what is currently happening with the climate is that increased CO2 and heat is being absorbed by the ocean. This is changing the ocean's PH balance, making it more acidic. THIS is what is causing the coral reef die-off. So unlikely that they will simply move. What is more terrifying is that as warming increases and acidity goes up, not only will the coral structures bleach and die out (50% complete), they will begin to actually dissolve, hampering any recovery. This would make the situation irreversible.
- changoplatanero 7y ago
  I thought the reason the coral dies is not because of rising coastline but because the ocean is warmer and the extra co2 makes it more acidic.
- LargeWu 7y ago
  Part of the problem with coral is that the oceans are becoming more acidic, and as a result, it literally dissolves coral skeletons.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    I can see acidification being an issue for sure. And CO2 is supposed to increase acidification. But many geological reef formations are very old, 10's or even hundreds of millions of years old. At the time these reefs were formed, CO2 levels were much much higher than they are predicted to be any time soon. Yet somehow the reefs were constructed anyway and corals as a species pulled through. In spite of CO2 levels (per Wikipedia) '''between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm''' (what are we at today? like 400ppm?) The reef I live on incidentally is thought to have been formed like 265 million years ago. At which time CO2 levels were possibly an order of magnitude higher than today. So I really am a bit confused still.
makerofspoons 7y ago
I'm almost as alarmist as they come when it comes to climate change, but I'm skeptical of the higher ECS values coming out of the newer models (as are the scientists developing them). In AR5 there was a noted divergence in the ECS values predicted by general circulation models and energy balance models. As computer-minded folk we should appreciate that when attempting a new approach in software one is bound to break things- like perhaps the way aerosols or clouds are being handled which seems to be supercharging the warming in these new models.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> if all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were reduced to zero immediately. Bluntly, do you know how many people that would kill? Kill by lack of air conditioning, and lack of transportation for food, at a minimum. Lack of growing food, too, given how mechanized agriculture is now. It's not just a matter of needing "strong global policy". You need a way of making that transition without the transition killing large numbers of people.

11235853211 7y ago

Direct this rage in a productive manner. There is environmental progress in reform, but it will not change the core power dynamic. The police kill and enslave with impunity, corporations will destroy the lands and waters we rely on for food and sustenance. How can we eat if our lands are destroyed for profit? Revolution will bring our societies together and halt the destruction of our planet.

kryogen1c 7y ago
> Direct this rage in a productive manner. There is environmental progress in reform, but it will not change the core power dynamic. The police kill and enslave with impunity, corporations will destroy the lands and waters we rely on for food and sustenance. How can we eat if our lands are destroyed for profit? Revolution will bring our societies together and halt the destruction of our planet. I disagree with basically every point you made, but i wonder if extremist lunacy like this might be a necessary evil to punch through the inertia keeping us driving off a cliff, together and and globally. If the rule we followed brought us here, of what use was the rule?
- 11235853211 7y ago
  It's not extremist nor lunacy if your people are being killed and your own backyard is being poisoned. It is standing up for your rights as a human being. Revolution has time and time again been the way our societies evolve. If the American Revolution taught us anything, it's that our people can rise against their rulers and succeed.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Revolution will bring our societies together That's... one possible outcome. (Hat tip to the "Sunset Grille" webcomic, where I stole this line from a character.)
20150327ASG 7y ago
“The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” ~Utah Phillips Inb4 pedant quibbles "the planet itself is not dying." Yeah, but we and our fellow creatures are dying. It should be understood that is what was meant.

mythrwy 7y ago

Question about reef building coral. I live literally on top of an old coral reef. In the desert. This area was under an ocean 10's of millions of years ago. As the earth warms won't coral simple colonize along the new coastline? Why will they suddenly be gone? (there may be an answer... I just don't know what it would be).

23throwaway23 7y ago
So what is currently happening with the climate is that increased CO2 and heat is being absorbed by the ocean. This is changing the ocean's PH balance, making it more acidic. THIS is what is causing the coral reef die-off. So unlikely that they will simply move. What is more terrifying is that as warming increases and acidity goes up, not only will the coral structures bleach and die out (50% complete), they will begin to actually dissolve, hampering any recovery. This would make the situation irreversible.
changoplatanero 7y ago
I thought the reason the coral dies is not because of rising coastline but because the ocean is warmer and the extra co2 makes it more acidic.
LargeWu 7y ago
Part of the problem with coral is that the oceans are becoming more acidic, and as a result, it literally dissolves coral skeletons.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  I can see acidification being an issue for sure. And CO2 is supposed to increase acidification. But many geological reef formations are very old, 10's or even hundreds of millions of years old. At the time these reefs were formed, CO2 levels were much much higher than they are predicted to be any time soon. Yet somehow the reefs were constructed anyway and corals as a species pulled through. In spite of CO2 levels (per Wikipedia) '''between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm''' (what are we at today? like 400ppm?) The reef I live on incidentally is thought to have been formed like 265 million years ago. At which time CO2 levels were possibly an order of magnitude higher than today. So I really am a bit confused still.

makerofspoons 7y ago

I'm almost as alarmist as they come when it comes to climate change, but I'm skeptical of the higher ECS values coming out of the newer models (as are the scientists developing them). In AR5 there was a noted divergence in the ECS values predicted by general circulation models and energy balance models. As computer-minded folk we should appreciate that when attempting a new approach in software one is bound to break things- like perhaps the way aerosols or clouds are being handled which seems to be supercharging the warming in these new models.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> if all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were reduced to zero immediately. Bluntly, do you know how many people that would kill? Kill by lack of air conditioning, and lack of transportation for food, at a minimum. Lack of growing food, too, given how mechanized agriculture is now. It's not just a matter of needing "strong global policy". You need a way of making that transition without the transition killing large numbers of people.