5 ms·

The 3-degree limit could be exceeded as early as 2050

48 points by simmerup 3mo ago

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo 3mo ago
Jesus Christ I was just recalling 1.5 being a “everything is fucked” Paris agreement number Then it was “some people will survive” 2.5 It’s like 100% of climate scientists were ignored by industry and society
- dotcoma 3mo ago
  It’s what happens as long as buying a larger SUV and burning more gas is somehow considered good for the ‘economy’ …
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
- DangitBobby 3mo ago
  They were, mostly because they were actively undermined by Republican administrations and "special interest groups" going back decades.
  - postalrat 3mo ago
    I believe the anti-nuclear people have done more damage.
    - DangitBobby 3mo ago
      They have definitely done some damage but there's some overlap between "special interest groups" and anti-nuclear if I'm not mistaken. If you're catching my drift.
rekabis 3mo ago
Point of contention: > It can no longer be denied: Climate change is progressing unabated and accelerating. In 2023 and 2024, global average temperatures were 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the first time. It is even possible that the 1.5-degree limit for global warming agreed upon in Paris may already have been permanently exceeded. The value they are talking about is the political definition, and not the scientific definition. The political definition requires a +1.5℃ increase to be unbroken across a number of years - 20 years, as set by the IPCC - before it is “accepted”. Not the first year in which warming never again drops beneath +1.5℃, but 20 unbroken years of said minimum. Many scientists consider +1.5℃ to have been reliably and consistently breached at some point in the very early 2010s. And by that same metric we might have already blown past +2℃, which may have happened by 2023. The reason why this is so alarming is because +4℃ is the point at which megafauna - all animals over 45kg, like humans - can no longer survive on this planet. They go extinct. There are adults alive today which will see this come to pass.
- hyperhello 3mo ago
  In what way does +4C kill all animals exactly?
  - rekabis 3mo ago
    Desertification, wet bulb temperatures, heat stress, loss of food in the environment, ecosystem collapse due to climate change happening too fast for ecosystems to migrate, and the massively increased range required to find food causing them to not find mates.
    - RetroTechie 3mo ago
      To add: ratio of surface area (skin, sweating/cooling), versus volume/weight (muscle activity, biochemical processes etc). The bigger the animal, the harder it is to keep cool.
      - rekabis 3mo ago
ncr100 3mo ago
Stopping burning coal might be a strong top step towards fixing this. Perhaps replace burning the coal with renewables/nuclear. And simultaneously keep methane leaks as low as humanly possible given how toxic methane is to our protective atmosphere.
WalterGR 3mo ago
111 comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48915244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48915244 “Global Warming at 3 °C by 2050? What's Behind the New German Climate Warning” (worldcrunch.com)
RetroTechie 3mo ago
The tragedy: by the time a big enough % of the public finds their own lives in turmoil, panic breaks out, politics shift, Big Oil & co get shoved aside, chances are tipping points have passed & we're in for the ride no matter what. These processes have a decades-delayed fuse. So it may just be too little, too late, with our species' extinction on the table (never mind all the 1000s of species we've already wiped out). Don't get me wrong: every little bit helps (especially now), and sooner = better. So please keep deploying solutions, and stop contributing to the problem! But I can't say I'm optimistic. Public at large does not understand how quickly the state of a system can change once underlying factors cross critical thresholds.
- londons_explore 3mo ago
  People were probably saying the same about the declining population of the dodo. "We'll all starve". Yet the world goes on, and usually future people tend to not care so much about mistakes of the past.
  - simmerup 3mo ago
    The population problem was solved by some chemical reaction using fossil fuels to create fertiliser so crop yields could increase What’s going to be the tech solution this time?
    - RetroTechie 3mo ago
      > The population problem was solved by some chemical reaction using fossil fuels to create fertiliser so crop yields could increase "Solved"? It helped us become dependent on fossil fuels for food. And more mouths to feed. > What’s going to be the tech solution this time? There might not be one this time. And/or the core problem(s) are not technological.
- netsharc 3mo ago
  Some argue that another form of climate denial is the denial that we're headed for certain doom. Of course it's an easy cop-out, to say "well the planet's doomed anyway, let's book those flights to the Maldives! (Before the sea swallows them)". Or to deny responsibility by saying "Why should I change, look at those private jets!". I agree when Kurzgesagt argues, the fix is to push for political change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc . I like meat, petrol cars and flying vacations, but if they get heavily taxed to help save the planet, I'll sign up for that! I'll grumble that meat is such a luxury, but that's how it's supposed to be...
vlucas 3mo ago
If environmentalists and governments really wanted to solve this problem, they would be all in on nuclear energy. It is by far the safest, cleanest, most carbon-neutral form of energy we have that we can produce reliably at volume (base load). We went decades without building any new nuclear power plants in the US. Instead, what you actually see happening is environmental groups actively working to _shut down_ nuclear reactors before alternate power sources are ready and available, like in Germany and New York. This of course then results in higher prices, brown outs, and burning more coal and natural gas until more alternate power sources can be built to meet demand, also making the pollution issue much worse in the short term. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
- DangitBobby 3mo ago
  And what are governments doing?

48 points by simmerup 3mo ago

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

Jesus Christ I was just recalling 1.5 being a “everything is fucked” Paris agreement number Then it was “some people will survive” 2.5 It’s like 100% of climate scientists were ignored by industry and society

dotcoma 3mo ago
It’s what happens as long as buying a larger SUV and burning more gas is somehow considered good for the ‘economy’ …
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
DangitBobby 3mo ago
They were, mostly because they were actively undermined by Republican administrations and "special interest groups" going back decades.
- postalrat 3mo ago
  I believe the anti-nuclear people have done more damage.
  - DangitBobby 3mo ago
    They have definitely done some damage but there's some overlap between "special interest groups" and anti-nuclear if I'm not mistaken. If you're catching my drift.

rekabis 3mo ago

Point of contention: > It can no longer be denied: Climate change is progressing unabated and accelerating. In 2023 and 2024, global average temperatures were 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the first time. It is even possible that the 1.5-degree limit for global warming agreed upon in Paris may already have been permanently exceeded. The value they are talking about is the political definition, and not the scientific definition. The political definition requires a +1.5℃ increase to be unbroken across a number of years - 20 years, as set by the IPCC - before it is “accepted”. Not the first year in which warming never again drops beneath +1.5℃, but 20 unbroken years of said minimum. Many scientists consider +1.5℃ to have been reliably and consistently breached at some point in the very early 2010s. And by that same metric we might have already blown past +2℃, which may have happened by 2023. The reason why this is so alarming is because +4℃ is the point at which megafauna - all animals over 45kg, like humans - can no longer survive on this planet. They go extinct. There are adults alive today which will see this come to pass.

hyperhello 3mo ago
In what way does +4C kill all animals exactly?
- rekabis 3mo ago
  Desertification, wet bulb temperatures, heat stress, loss of food in the environment, ecosystem collapse due to climate change happening too fast for ecosystems to migrate, and the massively increased range required to find food causing them to not find mates.
  - RetroTechie 3mo ago
    To add: ratio of surface area (skin, sweating/cooling), versus volume/weight (muscle activity, biochemical processes etc). The bigger the animal, the harder it is to keep cool.
    - rekabis 3mo ago

ncr100 3mo ago

Stopping burning coal might be a strong top step towards fixing this. Perhaps replace burning the coal with renewables/nuclear. And simultaneously keep methane leaks as low as humanly possible given how toxic methane is to our protective atmosphere.

WalterGR 3mo ago

111 comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48915244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48915244 “Global Warming at 3 °C by 2050? What's Behind the New German Climate Warning” (worldcrunch.com)

RetroTechie 3mo ago

The tragedy: by the time a big enough % of the public finds their own lives in turmoil, panic breaks out, politics shift, Big Oil & co get shoved aside, chances are tipping points have passed & we're in for the ride no matter what. These processes have a decades-delayed fuse. So it may just be too little, too late, with our species' extinction on the table (never mind all the 1000s of species we've already wiped out). Don't get me wrong: every little bit helps (especially now), and sooner = better. So please keep deploying solutions, and stop contributing to the problem! But I can't say I'm optimistic. Public at large does not understand how quickly the state of a system can change once underlying factors cross critical thresholds.

londons_explore 3mo ago
People were probably saying the same about the declining population of the dodo. "We'll all starve". Yet the world goes on, and usually future people tend to not care so much about mistakes of the past.
- simmerup 3mo ago
  The population problem was solved by some chemical reaction using fossil fuels to create fertiliser so crop yields could increase What’s going to be the tech solution this time?
  - RetroTechie 3mo ago
    > The population problem was solved by some chemical reaction using fossil fuels to create fertiliser so crop yields could increase "Solved"? It helped us become dependent on fossil fuels for food. And more mouths to feed. > What’s going to be the tech solution this time? There might not be one this time. And/or the core problem(s) are not technological.
netsharc 3mo ago
Some argue that another form of climate denial is the denial that we're headed for certain doom. Of course it's an easy cop-out, to say "well the planet's doomed anyway, let's book those flights to the Maldives! (Before the sea swallows them)". Or to deny responsibility by saying "Why should I change, look at those private jets!". I agree when Kurzgesagt argues, the fix is to push for political change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc . I like meat, petrol cars and flying vacations, but if they get heavily taxed to help save the planet, I'll sign up for that! I'll grumble that meat is such a luxury, but that's how it's supposed to be...

vlucas 3mo ago

If environmentalists and governments really wanted to solve this problem, they would be all in on nuclear energy. It is by far the safest, cleanest, most carbon-neutral form of energy we have that we can produce reliably at volume (base load). We went decades without building any new nuclear power plants in the US. Instead, what you actually see happening is environmental groups actively working to _shut down_ nuclear reactors before alternate power sources are ready and available, like in Germany and New York. This of course then results in higher prices, brown outs, and burning more coal and natural gas until more alternate power sources can be built to meet demand, also making the pollution issue much worse in the short term. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

DangitBobby 3mo ago
And what are governments doing?