5 ms·

> The findings do not represent a break of the landmark Paris Agreement, which aims to “limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius,

> The findings do not represent a break of the landmark Paris Agreement, which aims to “limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels” over the long term. It seems safe to say we are now locked in to a path that will break the Paris Agreement, unless "long term" includes space sunshades, scattering reflective particles in the upper atmosphere, or other similarly drastic geoengineering solutions.

chefkoch 3y ago
I guess at some point we will start geoengineering which will either work or kill a lot of people.
- polotics 3y ago
  Looks like this is already documented: Termination Shock, by Neal Stephenson.
- boxed 3y ago
  We already do massive geoengineering. That's what all that CO2 is doing! We're just doing it incompetently.
  - wsc981 3y ago
    For reference: all that CO2 is equal to about 0.04% of human atmosphere. Of which 3% is from human activity. So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere.
    - chefkoch 3y ago
      That's a bit dishonest as the CO2 level has risen by almost 50% from pre industrial times so you would need a very narrow definition of human activity.
      - wsc981 3y ago
        It's been much lower and higher in the past. In reality, CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate change. Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
        chefkoch 3y ago
        Sure, all the climate scientist are wrong and some random guy in the internet knows more.
        wsc981 3y ago
        Actually there are various climate and other scientists who have this position. These scientists usually don't depend on grants and such for research. The thing is, whomever I will link, you will have some accusation that the scientist’s opinion cannot be trusted for whatever reason. So discussion regarding this issue is kinda pointless anyway. Time will proof these scientists opposing the human induced climate change narrative to be correct however. - https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 - https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 - https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/1745099826230874149 https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/174509982623087414... - https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860 https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860
        boxed 3y ago
        It doesn't matter if the sun and the clouds have more effect. It only matters that one variable is changing, slowly but surely pushing the equilibrium.
    - Shrezzing 3y ago
      >So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere. Unless you're discussing literal "human expelled co2", as in "the measure of peoples exhalations during breathing", then you're out by several orders of magnitude. The pre-industrial co2 concentration in the atmosphere trends between 180ppm - 300ppm. In the last hundred years, the concentration has increased to 420ppm. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ For reference, each 1ppm in the atmosphere is around 7.8 gigatonnes of CO2. Humans currently create around 40gigatonnes of CO2 per year, roughly equating to 5ppm added per year. We add equivalent to 0.8% of the atmospheric CO2 per year.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Kind of silly to compare the amount that actually insulates and traps heat to nitrogen and oxygen that don't. It's a 50% increase in insulating gases due to human activity that's the problem here .. not the thermally inert gases.
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        "I don't know what you're complaining about, I only increased the amount of cyanide in your body by 0.002% of your body weight."
- jowea 3y ago
  Is there a point to starting geoengineering after the situation is already disastrous? Because that's the only case I see it happening. The big advantage is that it could be done unilaterally.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    Why wouldn’t there be a point?
    - jowea 3y ago
      Maybe it would take too long for it to be worth starting when the situation is already very bad, but at least wikipedia implies the most well know aerosol injection is fast. I'm no climate scientist.
  - chefkoch 3y ago
    I think it being done unilateral is an even bigger risk. If China thinks x hast the best outcome for them but it is a desaster for Chile? Tough luck for them.
    - jowea 3y ago
      Yes it's risky but I feel it might work better with the world of states we have today.
boxed 3y ago
I don't like the word "drastic" here. It's very much less drastic than what we are already doing. In fact, it's much less drastic. I like to say: There is no longer a choice of playing God or not, only a choice of playing a competent or incompetent God.
- shafyy 3y ago
  You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expensive, make gas more expensive, make cities pedestrian and bike-friendly so people can get around without cars, make fast fashion more expensive. But of course nobody wants this, because the politicans and people voting for them are also fucking babies that start whining if they can't fucking fly across the world just for fun twice a year. God forbid they need to eat one meal without a fucking dead animal in it. Excuse my language, but FUCK trying to find "maybe" futuristical technological solution to problems we know we can solve right now, right today. But of course, VCs and other motherfuckers can't make money this way.They can make money if they invest in a direct air capture startups that will never work, but then get the fuck out of there and cash out. They are out there building underground bunkers while they have you believe that technology will solve our problems. IT WILL NOT.
  - AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
    [dead]
  - sigzero 3y ago
    I do so love my dead animals for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    The car one is the most frustrating for me just because global warming is but one of the many problems associated with car-only infrastructure in countries such as the United States. Your point about bunkers is kind of interesting. If society collapses the bunkers are really pointless. I think deep down the “rich people” building them know that. It’s just the same kind of silly doomsday prepping that regular folks do. 50 guns? Patagonia provisions? Plastic tubs of rice? All the same phenomenon. What I find so bewildering is that since the early 1900s the “rich people” seem to have lost their minds a bit more or perhaps just hate themselves and society. We went from a notable history of great public works to satisfy the ego, libraries to the glory of mankind, beautiful commissioned artwork and sculptures, and more to… well… “my name on a hospital/university”, effective altruism, bigger yachts and doomsday bunkers, and sprawling McMansions filled with boring bowling lanes for boring people. Of course this is a generalization and, I think a lot of good work is going in to funding research projects and things like space exploration (making fun of wealthy people trying to launch rockets is way too nihilistic for my taste). But on the whole it really seems like our civilization hates itself and the actions of the wealthy seem to reflect that quite clearly.
magicalhippo 3y ago
> It seems safe to say we are now locked in to a path that will break the Paris Agreement I've been of the opinion that this was obvious from the day the Paris agreement was signed, and should be absolutely no surprise to anyone. Not saying we shouldn't try, more energy makes for more extreme weather which is not great.

chefkoch 3y ago

I guess at some point we will start geoengineering which will either work or kill a lot of people.

polotics 3y ago
Looks like this is already documented: Termination Shock, by Neal Stephenson.
boxed 3y ago
We already do massive geoengineering. That's what all that CO2 is doing! We're just doing it incompetently.
- wsc981 3y ago
  For reference: all that CO2 is equal to about 0.04% of human atmosphere. Of which 3% is from human activity. So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere.
  - chefkoch 3y ago
    That's a bit dishonest as the CO2 level has risen by almost 50% from pre industrial times so you would need a very narrow definition of human activity.
    - wsc981 3y ago
      It's been much lower and higher in the past. In reality, CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate change. Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
      - chefkoch 3y ago
        Sure, all the climate scientist are wrong and some random guy in the internet knows more.
        wsc981 3y ago
        Actually there are various climate and other scientists who have this position. These scientists usually don't depend on grants and such for research. The thing is, whomever I will link, you will have some accusation that the scientist’s opinion cannot be trusted for whatever reason. So discussion regarding this issue is kinda pointless anyway. Time will proof these scientists opposing the human induced climate change narrative to be correct however. - https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 - https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 - https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/1745099826230874149 https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/174509982623087414... - https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860 https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860
      - boxed 3y ago
        It doesn't matter if the sun and the clouds have more effect. It only matters that one variable is changing, slowly but surely pushing the equilibrium.
  - Shrezzing 3y ago
    >So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere. Unless you're discussing literal "human expelled co2", as in "the measure of peoples exhalations during breathing", then you're out by several orders of magnitude. The pre-industrial co2 concentration in the atmosphere trends between 180ppm - 300ppm. In the last hundred years, the concentration has increased to 420ppm. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ For reference, each 1ppm in the atmosphere is around 7.8 gigatonnes of CO2. Humans currently create around 40gigatonnes of CO2 per year, roughly equating to 5ppm added per year. We add equivalent to 0.8% of the atmospheric CO2 per year.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Kind of silly to compare the amount that actually insulates and traps heat to nitrogen and oxygen that don't. It's a 50% increase in insulating gases due to human activity that's the problem here .. not the thermally inert gases.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      "I don't know what you're complaining about, I only increased the amount of cyanide in your body by 0.002% of your body weight."
jowea 3y ago
Is there a point to starting geoengineering after the situation is already disastrous? Because that's the only case I see it happening. The big advantage is that it could be done unilaterally.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  Why wouldn’t there be a point?
  - jowea 3y ago
    Maybe it would take too long for it to be worth starting when the situation is already very bad, but at least wikipedia implies the most well know aerosol injection is fast. I'm no climate scientist.
- chefkoch 3y ago
  I think it being done unilateral is an even bigger risk. If China thinks x hast the best outcome for them but it is a desaster for Chile? Tough luck for them.
  - jowea 3y ago
    Yes it's risky but I feel it might work better with the world of states we have today.

boxed 3y ago

I don't like the word "drastic" here. It's very much less drastic than what we are already doing. In fact, it's much less drastic. I like to say: There is no longer a choice of playing God or not, only a choice of playing a competent or incompetent God.

shafyy 3y ago
You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expensive, make gas more expensive, make cities pedestrian and bike-friendly so people can get around without cars, make fast fashion more expensive. But of course nobody wants this, because the politicans and people voting for them are also fucking babies that start whining if they can't fucking fly across the world just for fun twice a year. God forbid they need to eat one meal without a fucking dead animal in it. Excuse my language, but FUCK trying to find "maybe" futuristical technological solution to problems we know we can solve right now, right today. But of course, VCs and other motherfuckers can't make money this way.They can make money if they invest in a direct air capture startups that will never work, but then get the fuck out of there and cash out. They are out there building underground bunkers while they have you believe that technology will solve our problems. IT WILL NOT.
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
  [dead]
- sigzero 3y ago
  I do so love my dead animals for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
- ericmay 3y ago
  The car one is the most frustrating for me just because global warming is but one of the many problems associated with car-only infrastructure in countries such as the United States. Your point about bunkers is kind of interesting. If society collapses the bunkers are really pointless. I think deep down the “rich people” building them know that. It’s just the same kind of silly doomsday prepping that regular folks do. 50 guns? Patagonia provisions? Plastic tubs of rice? All the same phenomenon. What I find so bewildering is that since the early 1900s the “rich people” seem to have lost their minds a bit more or perhaps just hate themselves and society. We went from a notable history of great public works to satisfy the ego, libraries to the glory of mankind, beautiful commissioned artwork and sculptures, and more to… well… “my name on a hospital/university”, effective altruism, bigger yachts and doomsday bunkers, and sprawling McMansions filled with boring bowling lanes for boring people. Of course this is a generalization and, I think a lot of good work is going in to funding research projects and things like space exploration (making fun of wealthy people trying to launch rockets is way too nihilistic for my taste). But on the whole it really seems like our civilization hates itself and the actions of the wealthy seem to reflect that quite clearly.

magicalhippo 3y ago

> It seems safe to say we are now locked in to a path that will break the Paris Agreement I've been of the opinion that this was obvious from the day the Paris agreement was signed, and should be absolutely no surprise to anyone. Not saying we shouldn't try, more energy makes for more extreme weather which is not great.