4 ms·

Everything but taking care of the cause? Pollution. Deforestation. Etc. Here’s a good start: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-da

Everything but taking care of the cause? Pollution. Deforestation. Etc. Here’s a good start: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

senectus1 5y ago
yeah most that pollution is toxic still... so cooling isn't the only thing we need to fix.
labster 5y ago
Taking care of all of the causes is not enough to fix the problem of climate change. If we hit net zero today, it would still continue to warm for decades, which means more deforestation and desertification through fires. Your proposal is far too conservative to avert disaster.
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  Amd more to the point, it has already been made quite obvious we as a species don't have the will to tackle the cause, so we are left with quick fixes with side effects, or just trying to adapt. It doesn't really matter what the right course of action is (or was really) if no one will do it.
- eloff 5y ago
  Source? I think we would avert disaster if we got net zero today. We wouldn't avoid change and things would continue to warm as you say. But it wouldn't be the end of civilization, just very inconvenient. In the other hand if we don't stop making the problem worse we will eventually activate feedback loops that can't be stopped and that do end civilization, kill the majority of humans and other species, and make huge parts of the Earth uninhabitable by us.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    The IPCC special report on limiting warming to 1.5C is probably the best summary of ways to avoid catastrophe: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ In particular, the figures in chapter 2 are particularly informative. We are going to need to start sequestering carbon in the later part of this century, with as of yet unknown methods, but it's doable. I would caution that climate scientists have been generally too conservative in their predictions, and there's substantial risk that they have missed something that could make warming much worse than we expect. (I would consider a 1% chance of much worse warming to be a substantial risk, I purchase insurance for far rarer risks than that.) Additionally scientists have been overly optimistic about how much and how rationally society responds to the risks. So in general I would say we are in somewhat worse shape than the SR1.5 report says, but there's no evidence of that, it's just analyzing the situation using standard risk modes rather than getting point estimates and confidence intervals on the best evidence.
    - asdff 5y ago
      >We are going to need to start sequestering carbon in the later part of this century, with as of yet unknown methods, but it's doable. Seems like a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone here with the climate and housing crises if we just plant trees and turn them into apartments.
      - eloff 5y ago
        It can certainly be part of the solution.
    - eloff 5y ago
      1.5 isn't going to happen. I'll be happy if we manage to keep it under 3. There's no guarantee that doesn't trigger a total disaster, but it's possible it would also just be extremely costly, damaging, and inconvenient. At some level it would be a complete and utter disaster and it's not clear where that is. I think if we could magically reach net zero tomorrow, we'd be mostly fine. Obviously instead we will continue driving full speed towards the edge of the cliff, hidden somewhere in the darkness. I hope we apply the brakes earnestly and soon.
  - labster 5y ago
    Source is I am a meteorologist who has studied climatology. The residence time of GHGs ensure that we will have elevated levels for at least a century, even if we do all the nice things like plant trees. The terrestrial biosphere is too small, and not a long-term solution. Here in California, carbon-credit forests are going up in smoke. We have already committed to levels that I consider catastrophic. Particularly in the oceans, where CO2 partitioning into the oceans is bleaching coral and the habitats they create. In the terrestrial habitats, desertification widespread and rapid. The long-term solution offered to us by the Earth system is getting carbon below the carbonate compensation depth to be buried, or at least dissolved into the entire ocean, and not just surface waters. But the ocean overturning time is 500 years, and our timescale is somewhat shorter. I think how you look at catastrophe solely from a perspective of civilization is wrong, but even from the perspective of a state, things like the drought that caused the famine that caused the civil war in Syria which caused a refugee crisis in Europe are troubling. Imagine how much worse it will be when a massive typhoon hits Bangladesh. But from a human perspective people are already suffering loss of income, home, and lifestyle from climate-exacerbated natural disasters. And the biosphere has been hit hard — adaptation will happen, but the mass extinction means we will lose ecosystem services that will be hard to replace.
    - specialist 5y ago
      Yes and: non-human carbon emitters are now in a positive feedback loop. Thawing tundra, burning forests, ocean acidification, etc. We need to restore 350ppm asap. Meaning carbon negative. I know you know this. Just expounding for the lurkers.
      - labster 5y ago
        To be fair, it’s not all positive feedbacks. Ocean acidification is definitely a negative feedback. So too is desertification, which turns dark forest into high albedo grassland and deserts. Clouds are… complicated. Of the positive feedbacks that terrify me, it’s the undersea methane clathrates.
    - eloff 5y ago
      I agree with what you're saying. I think we just differ on what constitutes a disaster. Given the potential to end civilization, I feel any outcome short of that is a win of some kind. Even if the consequences are still severe. I also have serious doubts that we'll actually remove enough carbon to stay under 1.5 degrees of warming. We may just have to live with the consequences. I definitely don't mean to imply in any way that things will be just like normal. It's going to get rough.
karaterobot 5y ago
It's not one or the other, as mentioned in the linked article. In any case even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped today, which is not possible or even desirable, we'd still have a roughly 1.5 degree rise in average global temperature within the next couple decades. So, it's a question of whether we decide to live with the inevitable effects (the beginnings of which we're only starting to see) or do something about it. If the latter, what method balances effectiveness and safety in a scalable way, and marine cloud brightening is one of the best candidates for that.

senectus1 5y ago

yeah most that pollution is toxic still... so cooling isn't the only thing we need to fix.

labster 5y ago

Taking care of all of the causes is not enough to fix the problem of climate change. If we hit net zero today, it would still continue to warm for decades, which means more deforestation and desertification through fires. Your proposal is far too conservative to avert disaster.

galangalalgol 5y ago
Amd more to the point, it has already been made quite obvious we as a species don't have the will to tackle the cause, so we are left with quick fixes with side effects, or just trying to adapt. It doesn't really matter what the right course of action is (or was really) if no one will do it.
eloff 5y ago
Source? I think we would avert disaster if we got net zero today. We wouldn't avoid change and things would continue to warm as you say. But it wouldn't be the end of civilization, just very inconvenient. In the other hand if we don't stop making the problem worse we will eventually activate feedback loops that can't be stopped and that do end civilization, kill the majority of humans and other species, and make huge parts of the Earth uninhabitable by us.
- epistasis 5y ago
  The IPCC special report on limiting warming to 1.5C is probably the best summary of ways to avoid catastrophe: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ In particular, the figures in chapter 2 are particularly informative. We are going to need to start sequestering carbon in the later part of this century, with as of yet unknown methods, but it's doable. I would caution that climate scientists have been generally too conservative in their predictions, and there's substantial risk that they have missed something that could make warming much worse than we expect. (I would consider a 1% chance of much worse warming to be a substantial risk, I purchase insurance for far rarer risks than that.) Additionally scientists have been overly optimistic about how much and how rationally society responds to the risks. So in general I would say we are in somewhat worse shape than the SR1.5 report says, but there's no evidence of that, it's just analyzing the situation using standard risk modes rather than getting point estimates and confidence intervals on the best evidence.
  - asdff 5y ago
    >We are going to need to start sequestering carbon in the later part of this century, with as of yet unknown methods, but it's doable. Seems like a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone here with the climate and housing crises if we just plant trees and turn them into apartments.
    - eloff 5y ago
      It can certainly be part of the solution.
  - eloff 5y ago
    1.5 isn't going to happen. I'll be happy if we manage to keep it under 3. There's no guarantee that doesn't trigger a total disaster, but it's possible it would also just be extremely costly, damaging, and inconvenient. At some level it would be a complete and utter disaster and it's not clear where that is. I think if we could magically reach net zero tomorrow, we'd be mostly fine. Obviously instead we will continue driving full speed towards the edge of the cliff, hidden somewhere in the darkness. I hope we apply the brakes earnestly and soon.
- labster 5y ago
  Source is I am a meteorologist who has studied climatology. The residence time of GHGs ensure that we will have elevated levels for at least a century, even if we do all the nice things like plant trees. The terrestrial biosphere is too small, and not a long-term solution. Here in California, carbon-credit forests are going up in smoke. We have already committed to levels that I consider catastrophic. Particularly in the oceans, where CO2 partitioning into the oceans is bleaching coral and the habitats they create. In the terrestrial habitats, desertification widespread and rapid. The long-term solution offered to us by the Earth system is getting carbon below the carbonate compensation depth to be buried, or at least dissolved into the entire ocean, and not just surface waters. But the ocean overturning time is 500 years, and our timescale is somewhat shorter. I think how you look at catastrophe solely from a perspective of civilization is wrong, but even from the perspective of a state, things like the drought that caused the famine that caused the civil war in Syria which caused a refugee crisis in Europe are troubling. Imagine how much worse it will be when a massive typhoon hits Bangladesh. But from a human perspective people are already suffering loss of income, home, and lifestyle from climate-exacerbated natural disasters. And the biosphere has been hit hard — adaptation will happen, but the mass extinction means we will lose ecosystem services that will be hard to replace.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Yes and: non-human carbon emitters are now in a positive feedback loop. Thawing tundra, burning forests, ocean acidification, etc. We need to restore 350ppm asap. Meaning carbon negative. I know you know this. Just expounding for the lurkers.
    - labster 5y ago
      To be fair, it’s not all positive feedbacks. Ocean acidification is definitely a negative feedback. So too is desertification, which turns dark forest into high albedo grassland and deserts. Clouds are… complicated. Of the positive feedbacks that terrify me, it’s the undersea methane clathrates.
  - eloff 5y ago
    I agree with what you're saying. I think we just differ on what constitutes a disaster. Given the potential to end civilization, I feel any outcome short of that is a win of some kind. Even if the consequences are still severe. I also have serious doubts that we'll actually remove enough carbon to stay under 1.5 degrees of warming. We may just have to live with the consequences. I definitely don't mean to imply in any way that things will be just like normal. It's going to get rough.

karaterobot 5y ago

It's not one or the other, as mentioned in the linked article. In any case even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped today, which is not possible or even desirable, we'd still have a roughly 1.5 degree rise in average global temperature within the next couple decades. So, it's a question of whether we decide to live with the inevitable effects (the beginnings of which we're only starting to see) or do something about it. If the latter, what method balances effectiveness and safety in a scalable way, and marine cloud brightening is one of the best candidates for that.