5 ms·

Recent studies estimate climate warming is happening faster than it was, ballpark +0.3C per decade. As we are at or nearing +1.5C now, with global emissions at

by jgord 1mo ago

Recent studies estimate climate warming is happening faster than it was, ballpark +0.3C per decade. As we are at or nearing +1.5C now, with global emissions at an all time high [ perhaps peaking soon ] theres a good chance we are headed toward +2.6C by ~2060. Keep in mind the CO2 stays up there for a long time, centuries, so when we get to net-zero its max-CO2 and therefore max-heat.

convolvatron 1mo ago
does it stop? the more co2 the more heat is retained. so the relation between co2 and temperature is an integral over time. were we suddenly to stop burning things how far does it go up before infrared emissions equilibrate with the larger thermal flux? that and the lower albedo and other knockoff effects may continue to make things worse even if we were to stop.
- jgord 1mo ago
  yeah, Id actually like to see a reasonable prediction of the trajectory, factoring in recent few years data [ faster warming, current emissions, cleaner air / reduced aerosols and issues like those you mention such as equilibration and ocean heat buffering ] The graphs I see all have ridiculous ranges, either +1.5C hopium or +6C hellscape - whereas +2.6C within 20 to 30 years seems a most likely [and unpleasant] scenario.
- frozenwind 1mo ago
  Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play here? What about the AMOC collapse. IF too much heat disrupts some weather patterns which are heating the northenr emisphere, that would mean an increase in the ice cover again and therefore more heat reflection again.
Valakas_ 1mo ago
But in 50 years we'll defo have technology to remove that CO2.
- sfn42 1mo ago
  We will not. Carbon capture is a joke. It does not work anywhere near the scale it's needed. We would need many times more capture facilities than we currently have power plants. And to run them we would need many times more power plants, not to mention all the construction emissions etc. Carbon capture is completely infeasible. It's already too late anyway, our civilization is pretty much doomed barring some miracle.
  - ilikecode 1mo ago
    I thought "just plant more trees!" and found this helpful article https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-...
  - senordevnyc 1mo ago
    We should take a glance at what all the tech we take for granted today looked like in 1976.
    - sfn42 1mo ago
      It's not about tech. It's about the fact that the atmosphere has like 0,00something% CO2, so you need to process like a thousand tons of air to theoretically extract one ton of CO2. You basically need to suck the entire atmosphere through a factory, it's not about tech it's just a big fan. And then of course you need something to process all that air as fast as it comes in.
      - senordevnyc 1mo ago
        Why are these technical problems insurmountable, particularly over 50 years?
        sfn42 1mo ago
        We've already been doing it for 50 years, and the pinnacle of achievement in the field is a facility being built in Texas that is planning to sequester 500,000 tons of CO2 annually. The world produces over 38 billion tons of CO2 a year. Assuming they reach their target performance, we would need 38bn/500k=76,000 of these facilities just to offset our current emissions. The number of "power generating facilities" in the entire world, for reference, is about 30,000. So we would need more than twice as many capture plants as we currently have power plants. And of course they all need power, ways to actually get rid of the carbon they're collecting, chemicals etc. So sure, if you want to live in a dream world where we magically just invent a 1000x better way to do it it's totally feasible. And while we're at it I'm sure we'll just make a 1000x more efficient combustion engine and a 1000x more effective dynamo and 1000x more effective ways to grow food and 1000x more effective solar panels, desalination etc. The next 50 years will totally revolutionize all these technologies we've already close to perfected, surely. In case it wasn't clear that's sarcasm. Nobody is expecting to significantly improve any of these things because we are already closing in on hard physical limits that can't just be technologied away. A 1.2x improvement in any of them would be staggering, and even that is unrealistic for most if not all of the random technologies i mentioned. Furthermore, 50 years is way too late. In 50 years we will be at like +3-4C or beyond. If things haven't already completely gone to shit at that point I can guarantee you there will be chaos and much more to come. They will have more pressing concerns than building 70,000 carbon capture facilities. I'm not having kids, I hope my corner of the world stays relatively stable until I'm gone and I pity the people who have to live beyond that.

by jgord 1mo ago

convolvatron 1mo ago

does it stop? the more co2 the more heat is retained. so the relation between co2 and temperature is an integral over time. were we suddenly to stop burning things how far does it go up before infrared emissions equilibrate with the larger thermal flux? that and the lower albedo and other knockoff effects may continue to make things worse even if we were to stop.

jgord 1mo ago
yeah, Id actually like to see a reasonable prediction of the trajectory, factoring in recent few years data [ faster warming, current emissions, cleaner air / reduced aerosols and issues like those you mention such as equilibration and ocean heat buffering ] The graphs I see all have ridiculous ranges, either +1.5C hopium or +6C hellscape - whereas +2.6C within 20 to 30 years seems a most likely [and unpleasant] scenario.
frozenwind 1mo ago
Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play here? What about the AMOC collapse. IF too much heat disrupts some weather patterns which are heating the northenr emisphere, that would mean an increase in the ice cover again and therefore more heat reflection again.

Valakas_ 1mo ago

But in 50 years we'll defo have technology to remove that CO2.

sfn42 1mo ago
We will not. Carbon capture is a joke. It does not work anywhere near the scale it's needed. We would need many times more capture facilities than we currently have power plants. And to run them we would need many times more power plants, not to mention all the construction emissions etc. Carbon capture is completely infeasible. It's already too late anyway, our civilization is pretty much doomed barring some miracle.
- ilikecode 1mo ago
  I thought "just plant more trees!" and found this helpful article https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-...
- senordevnyc 1mo ago
  We should take a glance at what all the tech we take for granted today looked like in 1976.
  - sfn42 1mo ago
    It's not about tech. It's about the fact that the atmosphere has like 0,00something% CO2, so you need to process like a thousand tons of air to theoretically extract one ton of CO2. You basically need to suck the entire atmosphere through a factory, it's not about tech it's just a big fan. And then of course you need something to process all that air as fast as it comes in.
    - senordevnyc 1mo ago
      Why are these technical problems insurmountable, particularly over 50 years?
      - sfn42 1mo ago
        We've already been doing it for 50 years, and the pinnacle of achievement in the field is a facility being built in Texas that is planning to sequester 500,000 tons of CO2 annually. The world produces over 38 billion tons of CO2 a year. Assuming they reach their target performance, we would need 38bn/500k=76,000 of these facilities just to offset our current emissions. The number of "power generating facilities" in the entire world, for reference, is about 30,000. So we would need more than twice as many capture plants as we currently have power plants. And of course they all need power, ways to actually get rid of the carbon they're collecting, chemicals etc. So sure, if you want to live in a dream world where we magically just invent a 1000x better way to do it it's totally feasible. And while we're at it I'm sure we'll just make a 1000x more efficient combustion engine and a 1000x more effective dynamo and 1000x more effective ways to grow food and 1000x more effective solar panels, desalination etc. The next 50 years will totally revolutionize all these technologies we've already close to perfected, surely. In case it wasn't clear that's sarcasm. Nobody is expecting to significantly improve any of these things because we are already closing in on hard physical limits that can't just be technologied away. A 1.2x improvement in any of them would be staggering, and even that is unrealistic for most if not all of the random technologies i mentioned. Furthermore, 50 years is way too late. In 50 years we will be at like +3-4C or beyond. If things haven't already completely gone to shit at that point I can guarantee you there will be chaos and much more to come. They will have more pressing concerns than building 70,000 carbon capture facilities. I'm not having kids, I hope my corner of the world stays relatively stable until I'm gone and I pity the people who have to live beyond that.