61–70 of 276 posts
I'm curious what those carbon removal techs are exactly. Because a lot of the CO2 tends to stay in the atmosphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It helps to show that we're screwed. But the degree to how screwed we are can vary a bit.
We're not screwed if it's limited to just a degree. Things start getting dicy at 2 degrees, more severe at 3, and so on. To what extent society can adapt and mitigate is a guess. The climate modes are about the climate, not how human civilization handles it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While negative feedback loops are big in the media, they are not well understood and difficult to model. Also, other feedback mechanisms seem to get little attention. Are we only looking to model the feedback mechanisms that reinforce a narrative of cataclysm? Don't other feedback mechanisms exist that lessen CO2 concentrations, or temperature dissipation?
No. They aren't "only looking at feedback mechanisms that reinforce cataclysm." Modelers include every feedback that they can quantify well enough to include and the ones they don't understand well enough are studied carefully to be able to work out what the uncertainties are. Scientists 50 years ago predicted that we would be at around 1C (1.8F) of warming by 2020 with a 40% over preindustrial co2 level. That's exac…
Am I misunderstanding you? If not, do you have a link that discusses this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Edit: Found it in sec. 9.2 in the manual. It's 3.
https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have more to lose.
It's very difficult to fight ignorance, especially when they don't believe facts. This is the main issue with climate change deniers, not the inability to visualize the data.
Interesting tool. It basically says you can: - Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy - Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology - Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry - Reduce population growth - Reduce economic growth - Reduce deforestation - Increase afforestation For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120..…
There comes a point where the model no longer accepts any progress beyond a +1.0C increase. No matter how many additional actions taken, the floor is +1.0C. It seems the immediate extinction of the human race would still result in an increase in temperature. Is there research that backs this up?
The maximum model settings are for something better: the human race stays around but contributes very little additional CO2 and instead starts making real efforts to remove the CO2 we've already added.
This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…
Afaik even economists don't agree on the results of such policies.
They are just making an assumption and the whole app is merely advertising for their preferred type of policy.
The authors don't include some extremely nasty feedback loops the appear to currently be happening. For example, methane release from permafrost melt. As a result, the simulation appears to be misleadingly optimistic. - This tool is based on climate interactive's previous one, C-Road. - in the C-Road simulation when you click on parameters -> assumptions to add parameters about methane release through permafrost melt…
While negative feedback loops are big in the media, they are not well understood and difficult to model. Also, other feedback mechanisms seem to get little attention. Are we only looking to model the feedback mechanisms that reinforce a narrative of cataclysm? Don't other feedback mechanisms exist that lessen CO2 concentrations, or temperature dissipation?
You mean positive, right? As in self-reinforcing? Negative would mean the opposite, and there are a few of them (greater plant growth etc.) but they seem to be more than cancelled out by the positive (bad) feedback loops.
High taxation of fossil energy together with rolling-out of new energy/carbon-removal technology seem to be a real way out of this catastrophe. Does anyone have a list of startups and established companies actively working on any of those crucial solutions? Only found this through a quick Github search: https://github.com/flamato/awesome-climate-change-ressources...
Don't solutions already exist? There is a lot to do with engine size and vehicle size and weight, especially in the US. Nuclear energy and trains are possible, even if they require electrifying the railroads. Drastically reduce beef consumption is also a thing to do. Not sure about those "carbon removal" techs. A lot of the CO2 tends to go in the atmosphere. The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight une…
I too believe this overlooked dimension is the most important, and have some ideas for your consideration that I hope may strengthen this perspective.
1. "...You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions" - I would argue that this is an obvious complication, but I don't believe that it is an impossibility, under current conditions. It seems to me that the net amount of productivity and wealth on the planet is overwhelmingly sufficient to satisfy this issue on a material basis, but the problem is more so distribution of wealth and technology (and all the obvious complications that come along with that, of course). If this wasn't the case, then I would agree that your "can't" assertion would be correct, but luckily this seems to not be the case.
2. It is true that the problem is political, but I would argue that there are lower levels of abstraction that more accurately communicate the essence of the problem:
2a. Politics inherently derives from public consensus, even in authoritarian states (if to a lesser degree). From anything I've seen, there is nothing remotely approaching public consensus on climate change, both what to do about it, or even whether it's a real thing. It seems to me that the science is conclusive enough that consensus should be much higher than it is, so what might explain this anomaly?
2c. Public consensus inherently derives from human psychology, and I see very little evidence that humans think primarily in a logical manner, in groups or on an individual basis. In fact, there is ample evidence, both anecdotal and clinical, suggesting they do the very opposite of that.
[Politics] --> [Public Concensus] --> [Human Psychology]
I believe (speculatively, of course) that these ideas better describe the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, but I see next to no discussion on it. I'd very much like for these ideas to get into the mainstream for discussion, but other than beating them like a dead horse on HN and elsewhere, I'm not sure how this can be accomplished.
It's encouraging to encounter someone else who seems to notice this aspect of the problem, so at the very least it may be useful to try to discuss and improve the overall idea, in hopes that the message might eventually become strong enough to get some traction in the zeitgeist.
EDIT:
Two academics I've found who work most closely in this domain are Jonathan Haidt [1] and Daniel Kahneman [2], any suggestions of others to look into are appreciated.