3 ms·

>have to remain elevated for hundreds of years or even longer for this feedback loop to become effective. To further reiterate: hundreds of years or even long

>have to remain elevated for hundreds of years or even longer for this feedback loop to become effective. To further reiterate: hundreds of years or even longer for this feedback loop to become effective.

seadan83 4y ago
Said another way, within two full human lifetimes the planets climate could further be irreversibly changed locking in 23 feet of sea level rise from Greenland alone. Though, generally for emissions we are talking about a first order derivative. Just because you've slowed down from 100 to 50 does not mean you won't still run out of roadway. So, if we are a hair away from that tippingpoint, and magically go to zero emissions, we'll still hit the tipping point. Hence, it's not two lifetimes, but that is the total runway left so far for this. You can also consider the other extreme where CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere that everything shortens up. Another analogy, boil some water, put it off the burner, drop a small amount if ice in the water. The water won't cool off fast enough for the ice to not melt. It may take 10 minutes for that to happen, but the point of no return was when the water started at a boil.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  You and the models of climate 200 hundred years hence have no actual idea of what will occur. You will be dead, however and this is certain. It is baffling to me that it is a concern to you or frankly anyone that is not of extraordinary wealth. Why? I tell you why: all effective measures at "reducing climate change" (very status quo) will unquestionably make life more laborious and less comfortable for the lower 98% of humanity. Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen. The permafrost will melt unleashing massive forests worth of growth, huge swaths of frozen soil will become inhabitable and fertile. The ancestors of the Americas lived on the coast, 400 feet below today's surf. No one lamenting the old huts weve lost along the way
  - seadan83 4y ago
    > You and the models of climate 200 hundred years hence have no actual idea of what will occur This seems like an "attack the messenger" argument. If there is enough global heating to melt the ice sheets over Greenland - the climate would be different. 1000 years ago, the climate of the Earth was not melting the ice sheets of Greenland. Now that they are on track to melt, that is different. I only said the climate would be changed. Beyond this, the article is very well presenting a model of what would happen to Greenland's ice sheets over centuries. Otherwise, in my comment, I'm paraphrasing the conclusions of the article and giving explanatory examples which are based on thermodynamics and what was concluded in the article. It's not my opinion (and so making this personal is irrelevant). Otherwise you're free to contradict the validity of the model, you could have a very good research paper if you could nitpick how the article is flawed. Otherwise, saying "the models have no idea" is either nihilistic or ignorant and is very reductive. It's like saying, "I'm projecting my finances to go to zero in a year based on the current trajectory. Bah, why change anything, who knows what will happen a year from now!" > It is baffling to me that it is a concern to you or frankly anyone that is not of extraordinary wealth. - Why would the non wealthy be any less concerned about their great grand children than would be the wealthy? - Is concern for future generations of humans and every other species on the plant baffling to you? > Why? I tell you why: all effective measures at "reducing climate change" (very status quo) will unquestionably make life more laborious and less comfortable for the lower 98% of humanity. Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen. That is your opinion. To share my opinion, I find that "comfortable" way of life to not be entirely satisfactory. That way of life (industrialized capitalism, eg: Japan or the USA) leads to high rates of suicide, depression, poor environment (polluted airs, roadways, rivers) to all be very unsatisfactory (IMO). I recall how clean the air became when there were no jets and no cars on the road for as little as one week, and that was quite pleasing. You're also assuming that the needed changes are going to require _your_ personal sacrifice. If we, as normal people, can effectively adopt mass transit, electric cars; the rest of the needed changes are from industry. > Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen. This is provided with no evidence and is not a logical conclusion from any of your previous statements. It's already the case that a minority are causing an disproportionate amount of emissions. In some ways, how is this not already the case? If that is already the case, then the "sacrifices" are not relevant to the "extravagance" of the 2% (our sacrifices are not a necessary and sufficient condition for that extravagance, the two are independent of each other given that extravagance seems to exist today without those sacrifices) > The permafrost will melt unleashing massive forests worth of growth, huge swaths of frozen soil will become inhabitable and fertile. I think you meant habitable? Beyond this, this seems like a disingenuous argument since you stated earlier that no model knows what the climate will be like in 200 years - therefore how can we conclude the permafrost would melt? Though, taking the nihilism aside, permafrost melting would be another tipping point. This article describes another tipping point that also exists. But, the growth of forests is not a given (so, it's not necessarily the case that we can all just shift north & south). For example, there is a C02 level (around 1300ppm) that could be reached that could cause cumulus clouds to no longer form [0]. At that point, we're not getting massive forests but instead earth would be on track to be a hot-house planet (eg: Venus) > The ancestors of the Americas lived on the coast, 400 feet below today's surf. No one lamenting the old huts weve lost along the way No, but it is lamentable that Buffalo, Wolfs, bears have nearly disappeared along with bio-diversity and a lot of first growth forests. Looking at satellite pictures, it's quite amazing how much clear cutting has taken place; and travelling through those clear cuts is depressing. I personally lament this loss. So, just as we can lament the destruction of environment from those 400 years ago (more 200 years ago really), people 200 years in the future will lament us ruining the environment for them. We may disagree, but I prefer to be a steward of the environment rather than wreck it for the sake of marginal "comfort". [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger-clouds-tipping-point-and-8c-of-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...

seadan83 4y ago

Said another way, within two full human lifetimes the planets climate could further be irreversibly changed locking in 23 feet of sea level rise from Greenland alone. Though, generally for emissions we are talking about a first order derivative. Just because you've slowed down from 100 to 50 does not mean you won't still run out of roadway. So, if we are a hair away from that tippingpoint, and magically go to zero emissions, we'll still hit the tipping point. Hence, it's not two lifetimes, but that is the total runway left so far for this. You can also consider the other extreme where CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere that everything shortens up. Another analogy, boil some water, put it off the burner, drop a small amount if ice in the water. The water won't cool off fast enough for the ice to not melt. It may take 10 minutes for that to happen, but the point of no return was when the water started at a boil.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
You and the models of climate 200 hundred years hence have no actual idea of what will occur. You will be dead, however and this is certain. It is baffling to me that it is a concern to you or frankly anyone that is not of extraordinary wealth. Why? I tell you why: all effective measures at "reducing climate change" (very status quo) will unquestionably make life more laborious and less comfortable for the lower 98% of humanity. Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen. The permafrost will melt unleashing massive forests worth of growth, huge swaths of frozen soil will become inhabitable and fertile. The ancestors of the Americas lived on the coast, 400 feet below today's surf. No one lamenting the old huts weve lost along the way
- seadan83 4y ago
  > You and the models of climate 200 hundred years hence have no actual idea of what will occur This seems like an "attack the messenger" argument. If there is enough global heating to melt the ice sheets over Greenland - the climate would be different. 1000 years ago, the climate of the Earth was not melting the ice sheets of Greenland. Now that they are on track to melt, that is different. I only said the climate would be changed. Beyond this, the article is very well presenting a model of what would happen to Greenland's ice sheets over centuries. Otherwise, in my comment, I'm paraphrasing the conclusions of the article and giving explanatory examples which are based on thermodynamics and what was concluded in the article. It's not my opinion (and so making this personal is irrelevant). Otherwise you're free to contradict the validity of the model, you could have a very good research paper if you could nitpick how the article is flawed. Otherwise, saying "the models have no idea" is either nihilistic or ignorant and is very reductive. It's like saying, "I'm projecting my finances to go to zero in a year based on the current trajectory. Bah, why change anything, who knows what will happen a year from now!" > It is baffling to me that it is a concern to you or frankly anyone that is not of extraordinary wealth. - Why would the non wealthy be any less concerned about their great grand children than would be the wealthy? - Is concern for future generations of humans and every other species on the plant baffling to you? > Why? I tell you why: all effective measures at "reducing climate change" (very status quo) will unquestionably make life more laborious and less comfortable for the lower 98% of humanity. Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen. That is your opinion. To share my opinion, I find that "comfortable" way of life to not be entirely satisfactory. That way of life (industrialized capitalism, eg: Japan or the USA) leads to high rates of suicide, depression, poor environment (polluted airs, roadways, rivers) to all be very unsatisfactory (IMO). I recall how clean the air became when there were no jets and no cars on the road for as little as one week, and that was quite pleasing. You're also assuming that the needed changes are going to require _your_ personal sacrifice. If we, as normal people, can effectively adopt mass transit, electric cars; the rest of the needed changes are from industry. > Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen. This is provided with no evidence and is not a logical conclusion from any of your previous statements. It's already the case that a minority are causing an disproportionate amount of emissions. In some ways, how is this not already the case? If that is already the case, then the "sacrifices" are not relevant to the "extravagance" of the 2% (our sacrifices are not a necessary and sufficient condition for that extravagance, the two are independent of each other given that extravagance seems to exist today without those sacrifices) > The permafrost will melt unleashing massive forests worth of growth, huge swaths of frozen soil will become inhabitable and fertile. I think you meant habitable? Beyond this, this seems like a disingenuous argument since you stated earlier that no model knows what the climate will be like in 200 years - therefore how can we conclude the permafrost would melt? Though, taking the nihilism aside, permafrost melting would be another tipping point. This article describes another tipping point that also exists. But, the growth of forests is not a given (so, it's not necessarily the case that we can all just shift north & south). For example, there is a C02 level (around 1300ppm) that could be reached that could cause cumulus clouds to no longer form [0]. At that point, we're not getting massive forests but instead earth would be on track to be a hot-house planet (eg: Venus) > The ancestors of the Americas lived on the coast, 400 feet below today's surf. No one lamenting the old huts weve lost along the way No, but it is lamentable that Buffalo, Wolfs, bears have nearly disappeared along with bio-diversity and a lot of first growth forests. Looking at satellite pictures, it's quite amazing how much clear cutting has taken place; and travelling through those clear cuts is depressing. I personally lament this loss. So, just as we can lament the destruction of environment from those 400 years ago (more 200 years ago really), people 200 years in the future will lament us ruining the environment for them. We may disagree, but I prefer to be a steward of the environment rather than wreck it for the sake of marginal "comfort". [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger-clouds-tipping-point-and-8c-of-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...