4 ms·

Recent research argued that the loss of the Greenland ice sheet is now inevitable: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-sea-level-rise-caus

Recent research argued that the loss of the Greenland ice sheet is now inevitable: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-sea-level-rise-caused-by-melting-of-greenland-ice-cap-is-now-inevitable-27cm-climate https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-se... Given the lag in the climate, isn’t 1.5C warming more or less unavoidable now? We would need extremely steep emissions reductions that aren’t happening. I enjoyed ‘Under a Green Sky’, which combines a brief history of palaeontology (and amusing academic point settling) with the prediction that warming will eventually cause huge releases of hydrogen sulphide. We are perhaps entering a negative feedback loop where disruption makes countries less keen to work together on emissions reductions as metaphorical bridges get pulled up (is Russia going to bother even pretending to care any more?).

selimthegrim 4y ago
I don’t know why, but the author’s writing style in Under a Green Sky irritated me so much I couldn’t get past the first few pages. Maybe it changes if I stick it out.
- bambataa 4y ago
  I think I know what you mean. He has quite an arrogant streak and is amusingly dismissive of large swathes of people (“the Basques are so dour!”). It’s worth persevering with, imo.
saalweachter 4y ago
So historically in the climate modeling world, +6-8 degrees was considered the "we're all screwed" tipping point; this has led to recent optimism where it now looks like we'll probably level out at +2-3.5 degrees, and only some of us are screwed. The major tipping points that are estimated at 1.5 degrees are Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and coral reefs dying off. The former two have an associated sea level rise of about 3.5-4.5 meters all together. So I think this article isn't changing the "some of us are screwed" narrative substantially; it's more interesting because it pulls out all of the major forecast disasters and gives estimates of when (temperature wise) they'll happen.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Also from this article, between 1.5 and 2 degrees: > widespread abrupt permafrost thaw Which is “fun” because that releases a boatload more carbon into the atmosphere.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    And methane.
    - inetknght 4y ago
      Yes, methane contains carbon.
      - hh3k0 4y ago
        Methane is, over the span of 20 years, a 84--86 times more potent Greenhouse gas, though.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      As the sibling comment mentions methane contains carbon, but yes it’s worth pointing out because the short-term GHG potency of methane is extremely high. There’s potential for some terrible feedback loops here.
      - foobarian 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
        hh3k0 4y ago
        Everybody gangsta till the Clathrate gun pops off.
        saalweachter 4y ago
        If you have a Clathrate gun in one chapter, it must go off in the next.
pjerem 4y ago
IIRC (sorry, no sources) there is no real "lag" or "inertia" in climate. It has been demonstrated that if we stopped any emission right now, the climate would rapidly stabilize to its current state (in a couple of years). However, and maybe it's worse, human civilizations do have huge inertia when it comes to changing our way of doing things. I have no doubt that someday in the future, we will be a zero emission species. But I'm really unsure it will be soon enough.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  I’m fairly certain that’s not the case, because even with current levels of warming all the polar ice that can melt at current temperatures has not yet. A short video on background: https://youtu.be/Ix2XprA6A7I https://youtu.be/Ix2XprA6A7I That means some level sea level rise and any other climactic changes resulting from melting polar ice are coming regardless of what we do now. We can influence how much this happens, but we’ve already committed to a lot of damage.
- jandrese 4y ago
  Definitely not in a couple of years. Our current situation is like a big glass of ice tea that you have set out in the sun. For some time it will remain cool and refreshing, but once the ice cubes have finished melting it quickly becomes warm and blah. We need to move it back into the shade, but that's not possible until we've invested heavily into carbon sequestration, and that's not even fully feasible yet. There are a few pilot programs here and there, but nothing that could be scaled up affordably. Not even close. Worse, any solution requires political will to implement, and as you can see from even this thread there are rich and powerful interests willing to spend a lot of lobbying money to make anything like it as politically unpopular as possible. Even in a normally calm and rational HN forum you have them stopping only slightly short of calling climate change activists the new Hitler. Carbon Capture is supposed to be the supply side of the carbon market, but since the technology doesn't exist those markets have never worked.
- originalvichy 4y ago
  This goes against everything I’ve read on climate change and its long term effects. The world’s oceans are extremely slow reacting components of the climate. Wikipedia ”climate intertia”. If you have more recent data then please post.
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
I do believe that we are doomed as mass extinction is now inevitable. I also believe that PTB will launch wars of depopulation to ‘thin the herd’, as it were…for survival of the species. We can’t fight the planet. We quadrupled our population in just one century. Should have invested in anti ageing tech, reproductive technology and controlled our consumption/population. Point of no return now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

selimthegrim 4y ago

I don’t know why, but the author’s writing style in Under a Green Sky irritated me so much I couldn’t get past the first few pages. Maybe it changes if I stick it out.

bambataa 4y ago
I think I know what you mean. He has quite an arrogant streak and is amusingly dismissive of large swathes of people (“the Basques are so dour!”). It’s worth persevering with, imo.

saalweachter 4y ago

So historically in the climate modeling world, +6-8 degrees was considered the "we're all screwed" tipping point; this has led to recent optimism where it now looks like we'll probably level out at +2-3.5 degrees, and only some of us are screwed. The major tipping points that are estimated at 1.5 degrees are Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and coral reefs dying off. The former two have an associated sea level rise of about 3.5-4.5 meters all together. So I think this article isn't changing the "some of us are screwed" narrative substantially; it's more interesting because it pulls out all of the major forecast disasters and gives estimates of when (temperature wise) they'll happen.

ryukafalz 4y ago
Also from this article, between 1.5 and 2 degrees: > widespread abrupt permafrost thaw Which is “fun” because that releases a boatload more carbon into the atmosphere.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  And methane.
  - inetknght 4y ago
    Yes, methane contains carbon.
    - hh3k0 4y ago
      Methane is, over the span of 20 years, a 84--86 times more potent Greenhouse gas, though.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    As the sibling comment mentions methane contains carbon, but yes it’s worth pointing out because the short-term GHG potency of methane is extremely high. There’s potential for some terrible feedback loops here.
    - foobarian 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
      - hh3k0 4y ago
        Everybody gangsta till the Clathrate gun pops off.
      - saalweachter 4y ago
        If you have a Clathrate gun in one chapter, it must go off in the next.

pjerem 4y ago

IIRC (sorry, no sources) there is no real "lag" or "inertia" in climate. It has been demonstrated that if we stopped any emission right now, the climate would rapidly stabilize to its current state (in a couple of years). However, and maybe it's worse, human civilizations do have huge inertia when it comes to changing our way of doing things. I have no doubt that someday in the future, we will be a zero emission species. But I'm really unsure it will be soon enough.

ryukafalz 4y ago
I’m fairly certain that’s not the case, because even with current levels of warming all the polar ice that can melt at current temperatures has not yet. A short video on background: https://youtu.be/Ix2XprA6A7I https://youtu.be/Ix2XprA6A7I That means some level sea level rise and any other climactic changes resulting from melting polar ice are coming regardless of what we do now. We can influence how much this happens, but we’ve already committed to a lot of damage.
jandrese 4y ago
Definitely not in a couple of years. Our current situation is like a big glass of ice tea that you have set out in the sun. For some time it will remain cool and refreshing, but once the ice cubes have finished melting it quickly becomes warm and blah. We need to move it back into the shade, but that's not possible until we've invested heavily into carbon sequestration, and that's not even fully feasible yet. There are a few pilot programs here and there, but nothing that could be scaled up affordably. Not even close. Worse, any solution requires political will to implement, and as you can see from even this thread there are rich and powerful interests willing to spend a lot of lobbying money to make anything like it as politically unpopular as possible. Even in a normally calm and rational HN forum you have them stopping only slightly short of calling climate change activists the new Hitler. Carbon Capture is supposed to be the supply side of the carbon market, but since the technology doesn't exist those markets have never worked.
originalvichy 4y ago
This goes against everything I’ve read on climate change and its long term effects. The world’s oceans are extremely slow reacting components of the climate. Wikipedia ”climate intertia”. If you have more recent data then please post.

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

I do believe that we are doomed as mass extinction is now inevitable. I also believe that PTB will launch wars of depopulation to ‘thin the herd’, as it were…for survival of the species. We can’t fight the planet. We quadrupled our population in just one century. Should have invested in anti ageing tech, reproductive technology and controlled our consumption/population. Point of no return now.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]