4 ms·

I can't read the article due to the paywall but when I read the IPCC reports, the net-zero pathway for <2C required basically ceasing all fossil fuel consumptio

I can't read the article due to the paywall but when I read the IPCC reports, the net-zero pathway for <2C required basically ceasing all fossil fuel consumption within a very short period of time (for <1.5C it was practically instantly). I have seen no credible plan for how we would actually do this. Especially given we haven't even managed to stop (or greatly slow) the growth of global emissions much less reduce them to zero.

timerol 4y ago
> we haven't even managed to stop (or greatly slow) the growth of global emissions We definitely have managed to greatly slow emissions growth, and it seems pretty likely that humanity's greatest carbon emitting year will happen before 2030. https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1517943601124229120/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1517943601124229120/ph... This is slower than it should be, but there's very promising progress to build from
- arethuza 4y ago
  Are those reductions (which, of course, are a very good thing) actually reflected in the Keeling Curve? https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
  - PheonixPharts 4y ago
    People like to get optimistic about accounting tricks, we're in the Eron reality when it comes to climate change. The Keeling curve shows that not only is atmospheric CO2 increasing, but the rate it is increasing is also increasing. The difference between the Keeling curve and all other measures of industrial pollution is that the CO2 in the atmosphere can be directly measured, everything else has to be estimated based on reported figures. It doesn't matter how clever you are in accounting, the atmosphere doesn't care if your reported emissions show progress towards climate goals. The methane situation is even worse[0]. 0. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
  - esoterica 4y ago
    The rate of increase in emissions slowing down means that the third derivative of atmospheric carbon is negative. Your chart shows that the second derivative of atmospheric carbon is negative. Both these observations are consistent with each other.
    - arethuza 4y ago
      Interestingly article on "Estimating the short-time rate of change in the trend of the Keeling curve": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77921-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77921-2
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Yes The highest year-over-year increase in CO2 concentration was 2016-2017, and it's been on a downward trend since. The 2020-2021 increase was 30% smaller than the peak. That's still a lot, about 3X 1970 levels, but if the trend continues at the current rate we should return to 1970 levels in 15 years, and that will be with more than double the world population and 30 times the world GDP.
    - arethuza 4y ago
      That's true, but decadal averages don't look quite so good: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
      - jjk166 4y ago
        Well yeah, the turning point was close to the end of the last decade
the_other 4y ago
> I have seen no credible plan for how we would actually do this. Especially given we haven't even managed to stop (or greatly slow) the growth of global emissions much less reduce them to zero. Given the distribution of responsibilities, and the societal emphasis on specialisation, I think it’s completely unreasonable to expect the people who study the climate phenomena to also define a plan with such radical cultural change implications. On the one hand, it’s gonna take everyone to make some adjustments. On the other hand “day to day” folk have been making these adjustments for 40years and it’s clear that we need to make bigger ones, faster. The majority of the current suggestions seem to require changes in capital expectation, and extensive supply-chain alterations of the kind where whole sectors of work will need to change. No-one wants to do either because we live in a culture that doesn’t support these kinds of changes.
- schnitzelstoat 4y ago
  I'm not saying that the climatologists need to make a plan. But someone does, and so far I haven't seen any credible road map that gets us to net zero quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. It seems there is no non-radical future - either we face catastrophic climate change or unimaginable changes to our way of life.
  - the_other 4y ago
    I see. Yes, I agree with this. Sadly, the idiots with the capital and power who have been ignoring the research and evidence for half a decade were the ones who should have thought about this. If they had done, we might have made an easier transition. The only way forward now is radical.
BurningFrog 4y ago
The world has never developed according to a plan. Things just happen, most of them unplanned, many unforeseen.

timerol 4y ago

> we haven't even managed to stop (or greatly slow) the growth of global emissions We definitely have managed to greatly slow emissions growth, and it seems pretty likely that humanity's greatest carbon emitting year will happen before 2030. https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1517943601124229120/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1517943601124229120/ph... This is slower than it should be, but there's very promising progress to build from

arethuza 4y ago
Are those reductions (which, of course, are a very good thing) actually reflected in the Keeling Curve? https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
- PheonixPharts 4y ago
  People like to get optimistic about accounting tricks, we're in the Eron reality when it comes to climate change. The Keeling curve shows that not only is atmospheric CO2 increasing, but the rate it is increasing is also increasing. The difference between the Keeling curve and all other measures of industrial pollution is that the CO2 in the atmosphere can be directly measured, everything else has to be estimated based on reported figures. It doesn't matter how clever you are in accounting, the atmosphere doesn't care if your reported emissions show progress towards climate goals. The methane situation is even worse[0]. 0. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
- esoterica 4y ago
  The rate of increase in emissions slowing down means that the third derivative of atmospheric carbon is negative. Your chart shows that the second derivative of atmospheric carbon is negative. Both these observations are consistent with each other.
  - arethuza 4y ago
    Interestingly article on "Estimating the short-time rate of change in the trend of the Keeling curve": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77921-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77921-2
- jjk166 4y ago
  Yes The highest year-over-year increase in CO2 concentration was 2016-2017, and it's been on a downward trend since. The 2020-2021 increase was 30% smaller than the peak. That's still a lot, about 3X 1970 levels, but if the trend continues at the current rate we should return to 1970 levels in 15 years, and that will be with more than double the world population and 30 times the world GDP.
  - arethuza 4y ago
    That's true, but decadal averages don't look quite so good: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
    - jjk166 4y ago
      Well yeah, the turning point was close to the end of the last decade

the_other 4y ago

> I have seen no credible plan for how we would actually do this. Especially given we haven't even managed to stop (or greatly slow) the growth of global emissions much less reduce them to zero. Given the distribution of responsibilities, and the societal emphasis on specialisation, I think it’s completely unreasonable to expect the people who study the climate phenomena to also define a plan with such radical cultural change implications. On the one hand, it’s gonna take everyone to make some adjustments. On the other hand “day to day” folk have been making these adjustments for 40years and it’s clear that we need to make bigger ones, faster. The majority of the current suggestions seem to require changes in capital expectation, and extensive supply-chain alterations of the kind where whole sectors of work will need to change. No-one wants to do either because we live in a culture that doesn’t support these kinds of changes.

schnitzelstoat 4y ago
I'm not saying that the climatologists need to make a plan. But someone does, and so far I haven't seen any credible road map that gets us to net zero quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. It seems there is no non-radical future - either we face catastrophic climate change or unimaginable changes to our way of life.
- the_other 4y ago
  I see. Yes, I agree with this. Sadly, the idiots with the capital and power who have been ignoring the research and evidence for half a decade were the ones who should have thought about this. If they had done, we might have made an easier transition. The only way forward now is radical.

BurningFrog 4y ago

The world has never developed according to a plan. Things just happen, most of them unplanned, many unforeseen.