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

IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 456 posts

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#261

Post by shagie »

barbazoo wrote: post #157
makerofspoons wrote: post #145

The comparisons between the AR5 and AR6 are alarming. Now, under no emission scenarios other than low and very low which we are not tracking close to, we reach +2C at or just before 2050. Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration: https://sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-...

> Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration I wonder what it'll feel like looking back at that point. There isn't anything that I alone can do right now to prevent this from happening, it has to be a collective action but still, we've been warned for decades, over and over, we knew what would happen. Will we regret not ha…

From Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell:

Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc

and

We WILL Fix Climate Change! https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw

Make sure that you watch the second one if you watch the first one.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#262

Post by ratboy666 »

burkaman wrote: post #230
ratboy666 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not hyperbolic. What is NOT factored in by the IPCC is the effect of NOT using "fossil fuels". Agriculture is affected. NOT using fossil fuels simply means no fertilizer. Famine killing 1 billion would be expected. So -- bad if you do, bad if you don't. My "bet" is simple. I simply purchased natural gas stocks. The bet is that the need for fertilizer will beat the "stop fossil fuels". Because, if it doesn't, the mone…

Please read some of these reports before you say stuff like this. Of course they factor this in, of course it isn't true that you need fossil fuels to make fertilizer, of course the IPCC does not advocate eliminating fertilizer use. Producing ammonia is one of the primary uses for hydrogen discussed in the reports. There are many companies doing this as we speak (Yara, CF Industries, BP). If it turns out to be too di…

I agree with you. But I caution -- shipping lng is not something that Canada does or will do. Canada's stated goal is to TRY to ship hydrogen. Dangerous as that is. Yes, fertilizer production becomes "one of the last sectors to use fossil fuels". I see no other path. Of course, THAT has to be transported. As does the food produced... That entire chain relies on fossil fuels. A simple bet -- I invest in NatGas and pipelines. The IPCC may not advocate fertilizer reduction... Canada does. No LNG to Europe (for now). Canadian farmers are told to cut fertilizer use by 50%... or else. Market and production controls will be put into place.

And, it is NOT CLEAR that the current perturbations are CO2 related: Snow in Miami on Jan 19, 1977 would be an interesting case (in my lifetime, anyway).

As to the IPCC reports AND the local media reaction -- the Toronto Star reports that Canada will have to CUT CO2 emissions in half.

Here are the numbers:

2T per year for each human:

840lbs to 6710lbs (resting to active) exhalation. Which means, not below 0.5T/year/human.

We are at 20T/year/human here in Canada -- but, of course, at 8953 trees/human, with each tree absorbing 48lbs of CO2/year, Canada absorbs 215T/year/human (carbon negative in Canada by 195T/year/human).

Cutting in half? 10T/year pure human, or 205T/year. But, we are on track to "100 by 100" that is, the Federal Govt here wants 100M people in Canada by 2100. With an additional 30M people (putting the immigration growth in line with the climate objectives), the budget for each human is... well under 5T/year. Not just 1/2, 1/4 (by the specified date) How is THAT to be accomplished? What is interesting (if you have been following the numbers here) is that EVEN at the target date, NO MATTER WHAT the Government does, Canada is still "Carbon Negative". Go figure. It isn't even a problem here.

Solar, I guess... Won't be wind here... Oh, we are too far North for Solar to be that effective. Burn trees , just like our ancestors. That goes over really well... My bet is NatGas. Maybe Nuclear.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#263

Post by creato »

guerrilla wrote: post #215
makerofspoons wrote: post #145

The comparisons between the AR5 and AR6 are alarming. Now, under no emission scenarios other than low and very low which we are not tracking close to, we reach +2C at or just before 2050. Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration: https://sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-...

Do people in capitals not understand or believe this? What do rich people (some of whom control large parts of the media) plan to do exactly? Die? Bunker? I mean seriously.

What are the options, really? Option A is business as usual. Option B is a massive cut in energy consumption.

Option A implies at some point in the future, massive social unrest due to mass migration.

Option B implies massive social unrest today due to a large decline in standard of living. And no, it won’t be the “people in capitals” suffering here.

Option C is option A plus some geoengineering that will likely be undertaken when the situation is desperate enough.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#264

Post by Retric »

timr wrote: post #205
Retric wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas is a great pathway to net zero because the fuel is so vastly more explosive than the equipment. People own gas turbines that are literally used for less than a week a year and are simply paid for standby capacity. Quite literally you’re better off building solar where 1/2 it’s output is wasted over a year than burning natural gas. When you’re building that much solar things are very close to net zero. Eve…

> nuclear can’t do it economically. It can, we're just stupid (in the US).

No country on earth can operate nuclear at 20% capacity factor economically. It needs massive subsidies to operate at even 70% capacity factor quite literally everywhere.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#265

Post by Ekaros »

guerrilla wrote: post #215
makerofspoons wrote: post #145

The comparisons between the AR5 and AR6 are alarming. Now, under no emission scenarios other than low and very low which we are not tracking close to, we reach +2C at or just before 2050. Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration: https://sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-...

Do people in capitals not understand or believe this? What do rich people (some of whom control large parts of the media) plan to do exactly? Die? Bunker? I mean seriously.

They will be well enough. Maybe their mansions and yacht will be slightly smaller and they will need to find some new destination for tourism. But they will have their air conditioned and heated, homes, cars, shopping centres and so on.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#266

Post by noiv »

Well, some weeks ago The Guardian wrote:

Early forecasts suggest El Niño will return later in 2023, exacerbating extreme weather around the globe and making it “very likely” the world will exceed 1.5C of warming. The hottest year in recorded history, 2016, was driven by a major El Niño.

1.5°C is basically already locked in.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/16/return-o...

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#267

Post by brnt »

alfor wrote: post #260
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #185

Just in case it saves one person the effort to research this themselves ... for some reason I find the measurement of climate change in units of temperature a bit problematic (though entirely rational). It tends to suggest the old bugbear of "global warming", which of course gets translated by deniers (& skeptics) into "well it's colder here so that's wrong". I spent a while digging in to try to get some numbers on a…

Complex systems usually tend to equilibrium otherwise they would be in constant oscillation (positive feedback theory). As we look back in ice cores, there is variation, but not constant oscillations witch confirm a self stabilizing system. A few negative feedback we don’t often hear: increase of co2 have a huge effect on plant grow especially in hash deserted conditions. Increase in temperature increase humidity: cl…

Im sure the IPCC authors didn't forget their climate science 101 material.

Moreover, we can tackle multiple problems concurrently, no need to make it appear we can only ever do one thing. And as it so happens, climate change tends to correlate extremely well with war and famine. It certainly appears a climate solution is going to help many other big problems along as well.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#268

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

alfor wrote: post #260
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #185

Just in case it saves one person the effort to research this themselves ... for some reason I find the measurement of climate change in units of temperature a bit problematic (though entirely rational). It tends to suggest the old bugbear of "global warming", which of course gets translated by deniers (& skeptics) into "well it's colder here so that's wrong". I spent a while digging in to try to get some numbers on a…

Complex systems usually tend to equilibrium otherwise they would be in constant oscillation (positive feedback theory). As we look back in ice cores, there is variation, but not constant oscillations witch confirm a self stabilizing system. A few negative feedback we don’t often hear: increase of co2 have a huge effect on plant grow especially in hash deserted conditions. Increase in temperature increase humidity: cl…

> clouds that have a huge effect on reflecting radiation

My understanding is that clouds are inside that part of the atmosphere in which radiative forcing has decreased. This means that while they may reflect radiation so that it does not reach the ground, they do not stop (all) the energy from being trapped within the atmosphere.

> war, famine, poverty

All actual problems that will result from significant climate change, not distinct from climate change (even though they may exist for other reasons too).

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#269

Post by bartislartfast »

Rygian wrote: post #8

For anyone interested in what 1.5C represents, I can't recommend enough the Climate Fresk [1] exercise. It's not just the droughts and floods, the heatwaves, the changes in birds, insects, crop yields, … Include permafrost melting and releasing greenhouse gasses, civil unrest in populated areas that won't be livable anymore, unstable food production, and quite a few other causes and consequences. It's a feedback loop…

I'm wondering what those workshops will teach people to do. Most of the advice I hear comes down to three things "Vote green at the polls"(1), "Vote with your wallet"(2) and "encourage others to do the same"(3)

(1) I live in a democracy with ranked choice voting, and I always vote green #1, but the greens are in minority and the main parties are more interested in playing to the masses. sometimes they're in coalition but they don't achieve much.

(2) I'm a relatively well paid person in a relatively wealthy country. I own my own home, and I have rooftop solar installed. But I can't afford an EV that will fit my family, or a heat-pump, so I still have to burn oil or wood to heat the house in winter and burn diesel to bring the kids to school. I die inside a little every time I have to go to a filling station. We live in a rural area with no public transport, so that's not an option either.

(3) I talk people into getting solar panels and switching to EVs, lowering electricity usage, buying second hand, reusing, recycling, every green action thing I can do. I urge people to vote green. Sometimes I feel like I have a little effect here, but I could be fooling myself.

It's disheartening that an environmentally conscious person like myself, with a good steady income and no big debt, still has to burn fossil fuels on a daily basis to keep warm and move around. I feel like I'm part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#270

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

logicalmonster wrote: post #228
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Isn't economic activity a very good proxy for normal human life, good living standards, and the capacity to adapt to any conceivable challenges? It's not a bad proxy, but it surely is not as good as actual excess death as proxy for "normal human life, good living standards and the capacity to adapt". Economic activity is means to those ends; excess death is a measurement of how far we can attain them.

> It's not a bad proxy, but it surely is not as good as actual excess death as proxy for "normal human life, good living standards and the capacity to adapt". Excess deaths, in and of themselves, only tell you that more people than average died. Excess deaths, in and of themselves, don't tell you why they died. While a total number of human deaths is objective and can be counted with nearly perfect confidence, human…

That's the whole point: it doesn't matter why they died. If you're doing things well, excess deaths are low. If you're doing things badly, excess deaths are high. Could be a multiplicity of reasons that connect "bad" and "excess deaths", and the specifics won't matter if you're looking for a summary of "normal human life, good living standards, capacity to adapt".
Post reply on HN