4 ms·

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time, but things like methane break down much more quickly. In the short term, we'll have better luck by reducing methane

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time, but things like methane break down much more quickly. In the short term, we'll have better luck by reducing methane as well. Of course we'll still need to cut carbon over the longer term, but it's not as dire as you think.

lisper 5y ago
> it's not as dire as you think. I would like nothing more than for you to be right about this. But I don't think you are. We're at 420PPM CO2 right now. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to zero and eliminated all methane emissions, we'd still be retaining heat at a rate that is more than enough to produce a blue-ocean event [1] in the next decade or two, after which we're probably screwed. [1] https://glennfay.medium.com/the-blue-ocean-event-will-be-a-tipping-point-for-our-climate-42c05898862c https://glennfay.medium.com/the-blue-ocean-event-will-be-a-t...
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  Active carbon removal and other geo-engineering actions are the inevitable path we'll have to go down. The only question from my viewpoint is how much we're going to suffer before we accept that.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > how much we're going to suffer before we accept that And whether it will even be possible by then to remove enough carbon to make a difference. It's far from clear that it's even possible now. It took several hundred million years for nature to sequester all that carbon in the first place. It has taken us a mere 300 years to release it, but releasing carbon is one hell of a lot easier than sequestering it. And we're staring down the barrel of a blue ocean event in the next few decades, possibly even the next few years.
    - specialist 5y ago
      I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes. Otherwise why get out of bed. We have multiple viable tools. Oviline, some kind of atmospheric dimming, rewilding, industrial carbon capture. And I'm sure we'll try 100s of other ideas and strategies. My current grumpiness is that we're not already dual track. Yes, we have to get humanity to carbon zero. Urgently. We also need to remove carbon. By whatever means possible. We just can't wait for carbon zero before we start carbon negative efforts. -- I haven't heard or seen any efforts about securing current carbon sinks. Like maybe replant the tundras with stuff that will delay the thawing. Or precapturing submerged methane and flaring it. Or...?
      - lisper 5y ago
        > I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes It might be technologically possible. But right now the limiting factor is people's complacency. Only a very tiny minority seems to be taking the problem as seriously as it should be taken. Everyone still seems to think that we're looking at the odd anomalous heat wave here and there, and that real catastrophe is still several generations away. It isn't. The first thing that needs to change is for everyone, and our political leaders in particular, to accept that. Because by the time it becomes obvious to everyone that we have been staring down the barrel of a gun for the last 300 years it really will be too late.
        specialist 5y ago
        I hear you and I agree. What's the alternative? I volunteered for Audubon's Wetlands Conservation Network effort for a decade. Trying to save the wild salmon, maybe even restore some. I learned from them in the early 90s that it was already game over. (Confirmed at the time by my physicist cousin who pivoted his career to work on climate crisis.) I asked the biologists (my bosses) how they managed to persevere, knowing what they know. They answered that they just focus on the work, and try to enjoy life outside of work. So I came to think of it as Pascal's Wager for the survival of civilization, humanity itself, and very probably most of life. We probably won't survive. But why not try? Not telling you anything you don't know. Policy change happens very slowly, then all at once. So who knows? Maybe we'll out run the bear. If and when we pull our thumbs out, assuming I'm still here, I intend to help however I can. At the very least, working on something important would be nice. I've been reading your posts for a while now. I'm sure you'll help too. Peace.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    It feels like a lot of environmentalists are reluctant to acknowledge this as it could further reduce the public will to act. Carbon removal/geo-engineering (if possible) are the silver bullet(s) allowing us to never break our bad habits.
    - labster 5y ago
      Of course it sounds like it, but we really need to do all the things. We don’t need to take our foot off the accelerator pedal because we have brakes—it sounds really stupid that way.
      - germinalphrase 5y ago
        No argument here. Particularly because it isn’t even clear that we can scale carbon removal.
- GoodJokes 5y ago
  You just linked to a blog by someone who is not a climatologist. Seek out better resources to understand the timescales and gravity of the situation better. I suggest the carbon brief, realclimate.com, and this super helpful blog on tipping points: https://climatetippingpoints.info/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/ Not skeptic or denialist sites.
- darkerside 5y ago
  I didn't read anything about methane emissions in there. Did I miss it?
  - lisper 5y ago
    Methane doesn't have much to do with the BOE per se. The BOE is simply a function of warming. The details of how that warming happens don't really matter for that discussion.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      It does matter because methane has a larger and shorter term effect. That means that even if CO2 is on course to cause a BOE, we can cut methane, reducing greenhouse effects significantly in the short term, giving us a much better chance to avoid it.
      - lisper 5y ago
        Ah. That is an excellent point. Thank you. You've given me some renewed hope for the future.

lisper 5y ago

> it's not as dire as you think. I would like nothing more than for you to be right about this. But I don't think you are. We're at 420PPM CO2 right now. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to zero and eliminated all methane emissions, we'd still be retaining heat at a rate that is more than enough to produce a blue-ocean event [1] in the next decade or two, after which we're probably screwed. [1] https://glennfay.medium.com/the-blue-ocean-event-will-be-a-tipping-point-for-our-climate-42c05898862c https://glennfay.medium.com/the-blue-ocean-event-will-be-a-t...

TigeriusKirk 5y ago
Active carbon removal and other geo-engineering actions are the inevitable path we'll have to go down. The only question from my viewpoint is how much we're going to suffer before we accept that.
- lisper 5y ago
  > how much we're going to suffer before we accept that And whether it will even be possible by then to remove enough carbon to make a difference. It's far from clear that it's even possible now. It took several hundred million years for nature to sequester all that carbon in the first place. It has taken us a mere 300 years to release it, but releasing carbon is one hell of a lot easier than sequestering it. And we're staring down the barrel of a blue ocean event in the next few decades, possibly even the next few years.
  - specialist 5y ago
    I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes. Otherwise why get out of bed. We have multiple viable tools. Oviline, some kind of atmospheric dimming, rewilding, industrial carbon capture. And I'm sure we'll try 100s of other ideas and strategies. My current grumpiness is that we're not already dual track. Yes, we have to get humanity to carbon zero. Urgently. We also need to remove carbon. By whatever means possible. We just can't wait for carbon zero before we start carbon negative efforts. -- I haven't heard or seen any efforts about securing current carbon sinks. Like maybe replant the tundras with stuff that will delay the thawing. Or precapturing submerged methane and flaring it. Or...?
    - lisper 5y ago
      > I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes It might be technologically possible. But right now the limiting factor is people's complacency. Only a very tiny minority seems to be taking the problem as seriously as it should be taken. Everyone still seems to think that we're looking at the odd anomalous heat wave here and there, and that real catastrophe is still several generations away. It isn't. The first thing that needs to change is for everyone, and our political leaders in particular, to accept that. Because by the time it becomes obvious to everyone that we have been staring down the barrel of a gun for the last 300 years it really will be too late.
      - specialist 5y ago
        I hear you and I agree. What's the alternative? I volunteered for Audubon's Wetlands Conservation Network effort for a decade. Trying to save the wild salmon, maybe even restore some. I learned from them in the early 90s that it was already game over. (Confirmed at the time by my physicist cousin who pivoted his career to work on climate crisis.) I asked the biologists (my bosses) how they managed to persevere, knowing what they know. They answered that they just focus on the work, and try to enjoy life outside of work. So I came to think of it as Pascal's Wager for the survival of civilization, humanity itself, and very probably most of life. We probably won't survive. But why not try? Not telling you anything you don't know. Policy change happens very slowly, then all at once. So who knows? Maybe we'll out run the bear. If and when we pull our thumbs out, assuming I'm still here, I intend to help however I can. At the very least, working on something important would be nice. I've been reading your posts for a while now. I'm sure you'll help too. Peace.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  It feels like a lot of environmentalists are reluctant to acknowledge this as it could further reduce the public will to act. Carbon removal/geo-engineering (if possible) are the silver bullet(s) allowing us to never break our bad habits.
  - labster 5y ago
    Of course it sounds like it, but we really need to do all the things. We don’t need to take our foot off the accelerator pedal because we have brakes—it sounds really stupid that way.
    - germinalphrase 5y ago
      No argument here. Particularly because it isn’t even clear that we can scale carbon removal.
GoodJokes 5y ago
You just linked to a blog by someone who is not a climatologist. Seek out better resources to understand the timescales and gravity of the situation better. I suggest the carbon brief, realclimate.com, and this super helpful blog on tipping points: https://climatetippingpoints.info/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/ Not skeptic or denialist sites.
darkerside 5y ago
I didn't read anything about methane emissions in there. Did I miss it?
- lisper 5y ago
  Methane doesn't have much to do with the BOE per se. The BOE is simply a function of warming. The details of how that warming happens don't really matter for that discussion.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    It does matter because methane has a larger and shorter term effect. That means that even if CO2 is on course to cause a BOE, we can cut methane, reducing greenhouse effects significantly in the short term, giving us a much better chance to avoid it.
    - lisper 5y ago
      Ah. That is an excellent point. Thank you. You've given me some renewed hope for the future.