5 ms·

We are already experiencing negative effects of climate change. Can we reverse them? If not, we're beyond the point of no return. That's just terminology. It's

by dmos62 6y ago

We are already experiencing negative effects of climate change. Can we reverse them? If not, we're beyond the point of no return. That's just terminology. It's vague because what our goals are as regards climate change is undefined.

Retric 6y ago
Point of no return suggests some meaningful barrier was crossed. It’s true we are further than after the first person used coal to start a fire, but today is just another step on a process that’s thousands of years old. Various economic models of the impact of climate change suggest for northern countries we only recently left the realm of net benefit. It’s going to keep getting worse, but it’s hardly a major disaster right now. Limiting future climate change is important, going back to some arbitrary point in the past isn’t a clear net benefit. Hell, in 10,000 years humanity might be using massive amounts of orbital infrastructure to directly control the weather and actually prefer more atmospheric CO2. Or they might want to lower CO2 below preindustrial levels, we just don’t know.
- dmos62 6y ago
  What is disaster isn't self evident either. I, for one, consider the effect on various wild life systems as disastrous already. Edit: surprised to be getting down votes.
  - allworknoplay 6y ago
    Yeah this thread is filled with reactionaries downvoting everything that offends them :/
- foerbert 6y ago
  I find this view to be somewhat whitewashed, at best. There are multiple obvious, and meaningful, barriers. The effects of carbon dioxide production are not simply a collection of linear relationships. One tonne of CO2 today doesn't have just as much impact as one tonne of CO2 last year. There are points at which ocean acidity levels become incompatible with certain forms of life. There are limits to carbon sinks. There are points at which positive feedback loops become active. All of these things - and more - mean that there are very marked differences in the impact of the first coal fire and a steel plant (for a topical example) even after you normalize for the amount of carbon dioxide produced. Presenting current and modern carbon dioxide production as simply a continuation of the first coal fire is at a minimum ridiculous.
  - Retric 6y ago
    1 ton of atmospheric CO2 released in 2020 is exactly the same as 1 ton of atmospheric CO2 left over from coal fires in 1020. There is vastly more CO2 from fossil fuel entering the atmosphere today, but it’s only a difference in quantity. Which is the issue, CO2 produced today will generally still be around in another 1,000 years. Across geologic timescales it’s going to be sequestered, but on human timescales it’s basically permanent. There isn’t a clear transition point where suddenly this ton of CO2 kills of the Great Barrier Reef, it’s a very gradual transition that means coral has a very slightly harder time growing today than it did yesterday. Not burning a ton of coal in yesterday would have been as useful as not burning a ton of coal tomorrow, the only difference is we can’t go back to yesterday.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      The difference is that, barring time travel, there is nothing we can do to prevent the emission of a ton of CO2 that was emitted in 1020 (and even with time travel there is little contemporaneous technology we could replace it with.) But there is potentially a lot we can do (at various levels of cost) to prevent the emission of one ton of CO2 in any future year and the consequences of that additional emission may be disproportionately worse. Your own post acknowledges this, and it’s very much the point of the GP poster.
    - jamescrowley 6y ago
      The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
    - jamescrowley 6y ago
      The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger, but with every increase in temperature the greater the risk. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- allworknoplay 6y ago
  "For northern countries" It's absolutely monstrous to think in terms of what's ok just for the global north, here. We've done the vast majority of this polluting, and the global south is, in fact, currently, undergoing catastrophic change because of it.
  - Retric 6y ago
    That’s a fair point, however climate change has a much larger impact on temperatures at the poles than the equator. You still get rising sea levels and a PH change in the ocean, but the impacts aren’t evenly distributed. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html Another example is tropical diseases can move to colder areas as their carriers migrate north/south. However, there isn’t a hotter place to for insects to migrate to the equator from.
    - allworknoplay 6y ago
      Yes exactly -- so to measure just by what happens to us in the north -- particularly when we're causing the problems -- is basically genocidal.
      - eloff 6y ago
        The north is where the majority of the food is grown and people live. At higher latitudes is also where the majority of change will be felt. Not to discount the affects in the south, but they are very likely less impactful.
        allworknoplay 6y ago
        Most people live there, and most food for those people is grown there. These are people, who are not responsible for the catastrophes destroying their ability to live.
  - kaliszad 6y ago
    Actually, Europe isn't the low hanging fruit you are looking for. It is the US and China. The current output is much more than the history "head start" of Europe. For the normal workers in European countries (who might be actually living on a tight budget too), the reality is, they cannot do much about any of this without taking considerable personal toll (so real and fast change mostly doesn't fly politically). They can in certain circumstances e.g. eliminate inefficient heating with coal or oil or maybe drive with a more efficient and less polluting car, which improves air quality in their areas and thus health. This is achievable currently with small incentives and we can also observe most of it happening in richer areas, where there is spare capital in families to invest in such things. All of this has its cost first and the benefit can be felt quite a bit later if at all. Btw. it will change exactly nothing painting this as a conflict of the global wealthy north against the global poor south (implied). It is not very constructive and quite naive. Don't get me wrong, I am all for healthy environment for everybody as can be seen in my comments elsewhere.

by dmos62 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

Point of no return suggests some meaningful barrier was crossed. It’s true we are further than after the first person used coal to start a fire, but today is just another step on a process that’s thousands of years old. Various economic models of the impact of climate change suggest for northern countries we only recently left the realm of net benefit. It’s going to keep getting worse, but it’s hardly a major disaster right now. Limiting future climate change is important, going back to some arbitrary point in the past isn’t a clear net benefit. Hell, in 10,000 years humanity might be using massive amounts of orbital infrastructure to directly control the weather and actually prefer more atmospheric CO2. Or they might want to lower CO2 below preindustrial levels, we just don’t know.

dmos62 6y ago
What is disaster isn't self evident either. I, for one, consider the effect on various wild life systems as disastrous already. Edit: surprised to be getting down votes.
- allworknoplay 6y ago
  Yeah this thread is filled with reactionaries downvoting everything that offends them :/
foerbert 6y ago
I find this view to be somewhat whitewashed, at best. There are multiple obvious, and meaningful, barriers. The effects of carbon dioxide production are not simply a collection of linear relationships. One tonne of CO2 today doesn't have just as much impact as one tonne of CO2 last year. There are points at which ocean acidity levels become incompatible with certain forms of life. There are limits to carbon sinks. There are points at which positive feedback loops become active. All of these things - and more - mean that there are very marked differences in the impact of the first coal fire and a steel plant (for a topical example) even after you normalize for the amount of carbon dioxide produced. Presenting current and modern carbon dioxide production as simply a continuation of the first coal fire is at a minimum ridiculous.
- Retric 6y ago
  1 ton of atmospheric CO2 released in 2020 is exactly the same as 1 ton of atmospheric CO2 left over from coal fires in 1020. There is vastly more CO2 from fossil fuel entering the atmosphere today, but it’s only a difference in quantity. Which is the issue, CO2 produced today will generally still be around in another 1,000 years. Across geologic timescales it’s going to be sequestered, but on human timescales it’s basically permanent. There isn’t a clear transition point where suddenly this ton of CO2 kills of the Great Barrier Reef, it’s a very gradual transition that means coral has a very slightly harder time growing today than it did yesterday. Not burning a ton of coal in yesterday would have been as useful as not burning a ton of coal tomorrow, the only difference is we can’t go back to yesterday.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    The difference is that, barring time travel, there is nothing we can do to prevent the emission of a ton of CO2 that was emitted in 1020 (and even with time travel there is little contemporaneous technology we could replace it with.) But there is potentially a lot we can do (at various levels of cost) to prevent the emission of one ton of CO2 in any future year and the consequences of that additional emission may be disproportionately worse. Your own post acknowledges this, and it’s very much the point of the GP poster.
  - jamescrowley 6y ago
    The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
  - jamescrowley 6y ago
    The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger, but with every increase in temperature the greater the risk. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
allworknoplay 6y ago
"For northern countries" It's absolutely monstrous to think in terms of what's ok just for the global north, here. We've done the vast majority of this polluting, and the global south is, in fact, currently, undergoing catastrophic change because of it.
- Retric 6y ago
  That’s a fair point, however climate change has a much larger impact on temperatures at the poles than the equator. You still get rising sea levels and a PH change in the ocean, but the impacts aren’t evenly distributed. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html Another example is tropical diseases can move to colder areas as their carriers migrate north/south. However, there isn’t a hotter place to for insects to migrate to the equator from.
  - allworknoplay 6y ago
    Yes exactly -- so to measure just by what happens to us in the north -- particularly when we're causing the problems -- is basically genocidal.
    - eloff 6y ago
      The north is where the majority of the food is grown and people live. At higher latitudes is also where the majority of change will be felt. Not to discount the affects in the south, but they are very likely less impactful.
      - allworknoplay 6y ago
        Most people live there, and most food for those people is grown there. These are people, who are not responsible for the catastrophes destroying their ability to live.
- kaliszad 6y ago
  Actually, Europe isn't the low hanging fruit you are looking for. It is the US and China. The current output is much more than the history "head start" of Europe. For the normal workers in European countries (who might be actually living on a tight budget too), the reality is, they cannot do much about any of this without taking considerable personal toll (so real and fast change mostly doesn't fly politically). They can in certain circumstances e.g. eliminate inefficient heating with coal or oil or maybe drive with a more efficient and less polluting car, which improves air quality in their areas and thus health. This is achievable currently with small incentives and we can also observe most of it happening in richer areas, where there is spare capital in families to invest in such things. All of this has its cost first and the benefit can be felt quite a bit later if at all. Btw. it will change exactly nothing painting this as a conflict of the global wealthy north against the global poor south (implied). It is not very constructive and quite naive. Don't get me wrong, I am all for healthy environment for everybody as can be seen in my comments elsewhere.