Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

dpg-physik.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

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

#21

Post by Alpha3031 »

adrian_b wrote: post #18
Alpha3031 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many scientists consider +1.5℃ to have been reliably and consistently breached at some point in the very early 2010s. Do you have a source for that? The 20 year average (not minimum ) is considered reasonable to provide an estimate the GWL 10 years ago and is simple to calculate but obviously we'd only have the data going up to 2015 if using those. I don't think there are any, even current-year GWL indicators that…

While I do not know directly about what happens in distant places on Earth, where I live in Europe there are about 15 years since the last time when I used my winter clothes and my winter boots. When I was young, where I live there was permanent snow cover from early December until late March. All the historical sources from hundreds of years ago mention similarly heavy winters. Now there is more than a decade since…

+1.4 °C on average is pretty serious warming, I don't know how you got the impression I was "skeptical about the reality of climate warming". I'm even willing to believe that AR6 WGI is more conservative than it should be on GMST and underestimating current levels, seeing as they have previously underestimated things like sea level rise, but I don't think I am out of line for actually asking to see those alternate estimates which put us potentially above +2 °C from the preindustrial reference before accepting such a conclusion.

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

#22

Post by melling »

netsharc wrote: post #20
RetroTechie wrote: post #13

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)…

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.you…

We’ve had 4 decades.

If you’re still telling people flying is the problem, then you’re part of the problem

Where is all that renewable power we were promised every time we said “use nuclear”.

We still haven’t hit peak coal.

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

#23

Post by rekabis »

enraged_camel wrote: post #10
hyperhello wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way does +4C kill all animals exactly?

We are already living through a mass extinction event: https://www.worldwildlife.org/news/press-releases/catastroph... +4C would be game over.

And capitalism demands the “business as usual” path that is also the worst-outcome-possible path.

Wholesale civilizational collapse has already been modelled to occur between 2035 and 2045 to an extremely high degree of confidence, with a 50-80% collapse in human population to occur before the end of the century. You can’t maintain a post-iron-age civilization through that degree of collapse.

I would even posit that a post-bronze-age civilization would be difficult enough to maintain. Because you need a fair amount of tech to work iron on scales larger than a blacksmith’s shop.

And these models do not include major attributes of climate change, such as wet bulb temperatures forcing billions to migrate into first-world countries to survive, or how regional ecosystem collapses cause trophic cascades that ripple around the globe. They only looked at simple things like desertification, topsoil loss, chaotic weather (unreliable rainfall) and so forth.

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

#24

Post by rekabis »

RetroTechie wrote: post #14
rekabis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Yes, I tried to encapsulate that within the term “heat stress”, but thank you for laying that all out for those not in the know.

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

#25

Post by simmerup »

londons_explore wrote: post #17
RetroTechie wrote: post #13

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)…

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.

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?

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

#26

Post by DangitBobby »

postalrat wrote: post #16
DangitBobby wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were, mostly because they were actively undermined by Republican administrations and "special interest groups" going back decades.

I believe the anti-nuclear people have done more damage.

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.

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

#27

Post by DangitBobby »

melling wrote: post #22
netsharc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.you…

We’ve had 4 decades. If you’re still telling people flying is the problem, then you’re part of the problem Where is all that renewable power we were promised every time we said “use nuclear”. We still haven’t hit peak coal.

What do you mean "we were promised"? There were people saying "renewable would be sufficient" and then there were people who controlled the purse, and second group didn't give a shit what the first group had to say and kept fracking and digging for oil and coal.

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

#28

Post by DangitBobby »

vlucas wrote: post #19

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_ nuclea…

And what are governments doing?

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

#29

Post by RetroTechie »

rekabis wrote: post #23
enraged_camel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are already living through a mass extinction event: https://www.worldwildlife.org/news/press-releases/catastroph... +4C would be game over.

And capitalism demands the “business as usual” path that is also the worst-outcome-possible path. Wholesale civilizational collapse has already been modelled to occur between 2035 and 2045 to an extremely high degree of confidence, with a 50-80% collapse in human population to occur before the end of the century. You can’t maintain a post-iron-age civilization through that degree of collapse. I would even posit that…

True, high-tech supply & manufacturing chains are hard to mantain if social structures break down (as is happening already).

But you'll probably see large-scale crop failure first. It's simply not possible to grow the world's food supply indoors.

Migrant flows, political chaos & wars can do the rest.

Imho it's too strong to say that will happen worldwide. But on local (country/regional) scales? Absolutely.

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

#30

Post by RetroTechie »

simmerup wrote: post #25
londons_explore wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

> 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.

Post reply on HN