4 ms·

> Burgess said the summer had been one of tumbling records and it would only get worse if the world continues to burn planet-heating fossil fuels. It would get

> Burgess said the summer had been one of tumbling records and it would only get worse if the world continues to burn planet-heating fossil fuels. It would get worse even if we stopped burning fossil fuels immediately. Because of lag effects, tipping points, and masking.

louwrentius 3y ago
Why is this relevant: you seem to imply “don’t bother”. I would disagree strongly.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  I get the opposite implication, i.e. Holy shit, even if we hit the brakes we're gonna slide over the cliff with momentum.
- simpleuser27 3y ago
  Because HN is home to performative contrariness - making an observation for no substantive reason other than to show you "know" something.
- tejohnso 3y ago
  It's relevant because people continue to downplay just how dire the situation is. It's not only going to get worse if we continue burning fossil fuels. It's going to get worse no matter what. If accepting that would lead you to conclude that we shouldn't bother, so be it. That's your interpretation, not mine. But downplaying those facts so that you can feel better about the situation is something I would disagree with strongly.
  - louwrentius 3y ago
    I‘m on your side but your initial response would have meant something completely different to me, if you added that first sentence: > It’s relevant because people continue to downplay just how dire the situation is.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    If we stop burning oil now it will get worse for a while, and then it will get better again. It also gives us the option to work on carbon capture and mitigation technologies. If we just carry on it's guaranteed to keep getting worse and worse until it doesn't matter any more. The first is the rational choice, especially when the momentum in the models already accounts for likely future changes.
    - tejohnso 3y ago
      > If we stop burning oil now it will get worse for a while, and then it will get better again. It's not a given that it will get better again. Not on timescales that matter to our species anyway. >It also gives us the option to work on carbon capture and mitigation technologies. Couldn't we do that while still burning fossil fuels? Not sure why we'd have to stop burning in order to have the option to work on capture and mitigation. > If we just carry on it's guaranteed to keep getting worse and worse until it doesn't matter any more. It's guaranteed to keep getting worse and worse in that case. But we might already be at the point where it doesn't matter anymore. I wonder, at what point would you say it doesn't matter anymore? How do you know? > The first is the rational choice, especially when the momentum in the models already accounts for likely future changes. That's the rational choice based on the conclusions you have personally come to, along with your own mental predisposition. I don't believe the situation is simple enough to say that this is the only rational choice for everybody.
      - myshpa 3y ago
        > It's not a given that it will get better again. Not on timescales that matter to our species anyway. But it could. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/massive-forest-restoration-could-greatly-slow-global-warming https://getpocket.com/explore/item/massive-forest-restoratio... The right trees, planted in the right locations (0.9 billion hectares), could store 205 gigatons of carbon dioxide. ... That's two thirds of all the CO2 humans have generated since the industrial revolution. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares So we could plant not just 0.9 billion hectares but 3 billion. Twice as much CO2 as we have generated since the industrial revolution. > Couldn't we do that while still burning fossil fuels? Not sure why we'd have to stop burning in order to have the option to work on capture and mitigation. Because those technologies don't work at the scale needed. Check how much we're producing and how much carbon those factories are able to store. We'd need tens of thousands of them.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Nobody is downplaying it. Yes, it's going to get worse no matter what, relative to how it is now. But continuing to burn fossil fuels will almost certainly increase how much worse it is over the medium-longer term (decades-centuries) compared to rapidly curtailing use. That's your interpretation, not mine. Well, what do you advocate for? Semantic accuracy is good, but quibbling over it takes up time that could be better spent on ranking proposals.
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
The argument to immediately stop burning fossil fuels is a radical position which few take seriously. But you seem to be arguing that it'd be pointless in the same way that pressing the break in the immediate moment before a car accident is futile. Sure it might not help a lot, but I'd argue it's still the right call and will rarely make the situation worse.
- louwrentius 3y ago
  They clarified they mean the opposite: to illustrate how dire the situation is.
- tejohnso 3y ago
  I'm not arguing a position for or against action, I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims, and I'm pointing it out because there is a long history of downplaying the severity of the situation when it comes to this issue. Whether it's pointless or not is up for debate. Your brake pressing analogy could be slightly off. Rather than being in the moment before the car accident, we could be in the moment just after driving off of a cliff. In that case, brake pressing is indeed futile. But I think the system we're in is too complex to know for sure, and I'm all for people wanting to say that they are interested in doing anything they can. I'm also all for people actually taking action rather than just saying they are on board with the idea. Also...just do nothing if that's your preference.
  - adrianmonk 3y ago
    > I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims I believe you misunderstood the quote. "Would only get worse" is a set phrase that means getting worse is inevitable. The "only" means that no other outcome is possible. It's sort of an intensified version of "would get worse" in that it's more definite. So "it would only get worse if the world continues to burn planet-heating fossil fuels" means that if we continue burning these fuels, there is no chance we will avoid the consequences. It does not mean that the only way to have the problem is to keep burning fossil fuels.
- bgirard 3y ago
SimplyUnknown 3y ago
So the solution would be to continue emitting greenhouse gases and ensure it will also get worse in 30 or 50 years? > The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now. Said to be a Chinese proverb, but I haven't extensively verified. The only viable solution right now to combat global warming is to immediately stop emitting greenhouse gases, even if there is a lag effect.
- DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
  > Said to be a Chinese proverb Unlikely, cf. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/12/29/plant-tree/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/12/29/plant-tree/ There's an old Chinese proverb for this, it goes "most of the time it's not a Chinese proverb". Ah, words of sages, the wisdom of ages.
  - SimplyUnknown 3y ago
    I guessed as much, but I wasn't able to confirm. Thanks for the search.
  - IKantRead 3y ago
    Thank you for pointing this out! I have quite a few Chinese friends and they never cease to be entertained by the long list of "Chinese" proverbs that American's claim to know. It turns out that since for most of Western history China was synonymous with the "mysterious far east", it become common practice to just tack on "Chinese" to the origin of any saying to let it exotic credibility. Unsurprisingly "May you live in interesting times" is not a Chinese curse.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      That's not just west. Aladdin is from "China" in original texts too.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Immediately stopping all greenhouse gas emissions would kill a lot of people quickly by breaking supply and production chains for pretty much everything. So that is not an option.
darkerside 3y ago
CO2 is the big long term problem, but in the short term, I understand cutting methane would have a significant impact
Ar-Curunir 3y ago
So we shouldn't do anything at all?
- tejohnso 3y ago
  Is that the option that comes to mind when presented with the facts? That's your reaction. Not mine. Who am I to tell people what to do or not do? You could just as easily have read what I said and thought: "So we need to prepare for something even worse no matter what, and we also need to act much more aggressively than we are!"
  - dahart 3y ago
    Your top message does seem to imply and suggest there’s nothing to be done, and there are multiple replies that saw this as your summary point. I agree with you that it’s dire, and we need more aggressive action. I agree it’s going to get worse. In the short term, in terms of a few years, it’s true that changes to fossil fuel consumption won’t fix it. In the long term (decades and centuries) that’s not true though, and we do need to be thinking both short term and long term. We do need to curtail fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission in order to solve this problem eventually, in addition to taking stronger actions in order to alleviate some of the symptoms anytime soon, right?
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    That's your reaction. Not mine. Who am I to tell people what to do or not do? So you just dropped in to make sure everyone feels worse? Gee, thanks.
roter 3y ago
An interesting impact of an immediate stop of fossil fuel emissions is a rapid temperature increase over a few years due to an unmasking impact. i.e. the aerosols that are continually being produced due to fossil fuel burning drop out within days, weeks, months, increasing the solar radiation reaching the surface [0,1]. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y (paywall) [1] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/188408/6/Dvorak_Armouretal_revised_wtables_accepted.pdf https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/188408/6/Dvorak_Armouretal_r... (pdf pre-print)
- Filligree 3y ago
  > An interesting impact of an immediate stop of fossil fuel emissions is a rapid temperature increase over a few years due to an unmasking impact. i.e. the aerosols that are continually being produced due to fossil fuel burning drop out within days, weeks, months, increasing the solar radiation reaching the surface [0,1]. Well, what if we did so and also start spraying sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere?

louwrentius 3y ago

Why is this relevant: you seem to imply “don’t bother”. I would disagree strongly.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
I get the opposite implication, i.e. Holy shit, even if we hit the brakes we're gonna slide over the cliff with momentum.
simpleuser27 3y ago
Because HN is home to performative contrariness - making an observation for no substantive reason other than to show you "know" something.
tejohnso 3y ago
It's relevant because people continue to downplay just how dire the situation is. It's not only going to get worse if we continue burning fossil fuels. It's going to get worse no matter what. If accepting that would lead you to conclude that we shouldn't bother, so be it. That's your interpretation, not mine. But downplaying those facts so that you can feel better about the situation is something I would disagree with strongly.
- louwrentius 3y ago
  I‘m on your side but your initial response would have meant something completely different to me, if you added that first sentence: > It’s relevant because people continue to downplay just how dire the situation is.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  If we stop burning oil now it will get worse for a while, and then it will get better again. It also gives us the option to work on carbon capture and mitigation technologies. If we just carry on it's guaranteed to keep getting worse and worse until it doesn't matter any more. The first is the rational choice, especially when the momentum in the models already accounts for likely future changes.
  - tejohnso 3y ago
    > If we stop burning oil now it will get worse for a while, and then it will get better again. It's not a given that it will get better again. Not on timescales that matter to our species anyway. >It also gives us the option to work on carbon capture and mitigation technologies. Couldn't we do that while still burning fossil fuels? Not sure why we'd have to stop burning in order to have the option to work on capture and mitigation. > If we just carry on it's guaranteed to keep getting worse and worse until it doesn't matter any more. It's guaranteed to keep getting worse and worse in that case. But we might already be at the point where it doesn't matter anymore. I wonder, at what point would you say it doesn't matter anymore? How do you know? > The first is the rational choice, especially when the momentum in the models already accounts for likely future changes. That's the rational choice based on the conclusions you have personally come to, along with your own mental predisposition. I don't believe the situation is simple enough to say that this is the only rational choice for everybody.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > It's not a given that it will get better again. Not on timescales that matter to our species anyway. But it could. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/massive-forest-restoration-could-greatly-slow-global-warming https://getpocket.com/explore/item/massive-forest-restoratio... The right trees, planted in the right locations (0.9 billion hectares), could store 205 gigatons of carbon dioxide. ... That's two thirds of all the CO2 humans have generated since the industrial revolution. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares So we could plant not just 0.9 billion hectares but 3 billion. Twice as much CO2 as we have generated since the industrial revolution. > Couldn't we do that while still burning fossil fuels? Not sure why we'd have to stop burning in order to have the option to work on capture and mitigation. Because those technologies don't work at the scale needed. Check how much we're producing and how much carbon those factories are able to store. We'd need tens of thousands of them.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Nobody is downplaying it. Yes, it's going to get worse no matter what, relative to how it is now. But continuing to burn fossil fuels will almost certainly increase how much worse it is over the medium-longer term (decades-centuries) compared to rapidly curtailing use. That's your interpretation, not mine. Well, what do you advocate for? Semantic accuracy is good, but quibbling over it takes up time that could be better spent on ranking proposals.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

The argument to immediately stop burning fossil fuels is a radical position which few take seriously. But you seem to be arguing that it'd be pointless in the same way that pressing the break in the immediate moment before a car accident is futile. Sure it might not help a lot, but I'd argue it's still the right call and will rarely make the situation worse.

louwrentius 3y ago
They clarified they mean the opposite: to illustrate how dire the situation is.
tejohnso 3y ago
I'm not arguing a position for or against action, I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims, and I'm pointing it out because there is a long history of downplaying the severity of the situation when it comes to this issue. Whether it's pointless or not is up for debate. Your brake pressing analogy could be slightly off. Rather than being in the moment before the car accident, we could be in the moment just after driving off of a cliff. In that case, brake pressing is indeed futile. But I think the system we're in is too complex to know for sure, and I'm all for people wanting to say that they are interested in doing anything they can. I'm also all for people actually taking action rather than just saying they are on board with the idea. Also...just do nothing if that's your preference.
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  > I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims I believe you misunderstood the quote. "Would only get worse" is a set phrase that means getting worse is inevitable. The "only" means that no other outcome is possible. It's sort of an intensified version of "would get worse" in that it's more definite. So "it would only get worse if the world continues to burn planet-heating fossil fuels" means that if we continue burning these fuels, there is no chance we will avoid the consequences. It does not mean that the only way to have the problem is to keep burning fossil fuels.
bgirard 3y ago

SimplyUnknown 3y ago

So the solution would be to continue emitting greenhouse gases and ensure it will also get worse in 30 or 50 years? > The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now. Said to be a Chinese proverb, but I haven't extensively verified. The only viable solution right now to combat global warming is to immediately stop emitting greenhouse gases, even if there is a lag effect.

DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
> Said to be a Chinese proverb Unlikely, cf. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/12/29/plant-tree/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/12/29/plant-tree/ There's an old Chinese proverb for this, it goes "most of the time it's not a Chinese proverb". Ah, words of sages, the wisdom of ages.
- SimplyUnknown 3y ago
  I guessed as much, but I wasn't able to confirm. Thanks for the search.
- IKantRead 3y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out! I have quite a few Chinese friends and they never cease to be entertained by the long list of "Chinese" proverbs that American's claim to know. It turns out that since for most of Western history China was synonymous with the "mysterious far east", it become common practice to just tack on "Chinese" to the origin of any saying to let it exotic credibility. Unsurprisingly "May you live in interesting times" is not a Chinese curse.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    That's not just west. Aladdin is from "China" in original texts too.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Immediately stopping all greenhouse gas emissions would kill a lot of people quickly by breaking supply and production chains for pretty much everything. So that is not an option.

darkerside 3y ago

CO2 is the big long term problem, but in the short term, I understand cutting methane would have a significant impact

Ar-Curunir 3y ago

So we shouldn't do anything at all?

tejohnso 3y ago
Is that the option that comes to mind when presented with the facts? That's your reaction. Not mine. Who am I to tell people what to do or not do? You could just as easily have read what I said and thought: "So we need to prepare for something even worse no matter what, and we also need to act much more aggressively than we are!"
- dahart 3y ago
  Your top message does seem to imply and suggest there’s nothing to be done, and there are multiple replies that saw this as your summary point. I agree with you that it’s dire, and we need more aggressive action. I agree it’s going to get worse. In the short term, in terms of a few years, it’s true that changes to fossil fuel consumption won’t fix it. In the long term (decades and centuries) that’s not true though, and we do need to be thinking both short term and long term. We do need to curtail fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission in order to solve this problem eventually, in addition to taking stronger actions in order to alleviate some of the symptoms anytime soon, right?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  That's your reaction. Not mine. Who am I to tell people what to do or not do? So you just dropped in to make sure everyone feels worse? Gee, thanks.

roter 3y ago

An interesting impact of an immediate stop of fossil fuel emissions is a rapid temperature increase over a few years due to an unmasking impact. i.e. the aerosols that are continually being produced due to fossil fuel burning drop out within days, weeks, months, increasing the solar radiation reaching the surface [0,1]. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y (paywall) [1] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/188408/6/Dvorak_Armouretal_revised_wtables_accepted.pdf https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/188408/6/Dvorak_Armouretal_r... (pdf pre-print)

Filligree 3y ago
> An interesting impact of an immediate stop of fossil fuel emissions is a rapid temperature increase over a few years due to an unmasking impact. i.e. the aerosols that are continually being produced due to fossil fuel burning drop out within days, weeks, months, increasing the solar radiation reaching the surface [0,1]. Well, what if we did so and also start spraying sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere?