44 votes

The world has barely ten years to get climate change under control, UN scientists say

Topic removed by site admin

38 comments

  1. [15]
    Brock_Knifemann
    Link
    I am not an expert. I'm not a scientist, I'm not an environmental engineer nor am I any kind of policy maker. I'm just a regular schmo who is currently in school after 15 years in heavy industry...

    I am not an expert. I'm not a scientist, I'm not an environmental engineer nor am I any kind of policy maker. I'm just a regular schmo who is currently in school after 15 years in heavy industry (8-½ years in an oil refinery). I am an avid reader who has great concern in the environment and some uncommon life experience.

    Take my opinion for what it's worth, but I honestly think these "we havex years" articles aren't helpful. We're far enough into this problem that realistically, we're not be able to make the changes needed (especially given current political conditions). We need to be getting ready to deal with the upcoming problems that we've brought on ourselves.

    19 votes
    1. [7]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      They add a sense of urgency. A practical and almost tangible deadline is much better than "umm... look... something bad is coming sometime... but we can't say how bad or when... just that it's...

      I honestly think these "we havex years" articles aren't helpful.

      They add a sense of urgency. A practical and almost tangible deadline is much better than "umm... look... something bad is coming sometime... but we can't say how bad or when... just that it's coming... but you should definitely do something about this vague threat..."

      We need to be getting ready to deal with the upcoming problems that we've brought on ourselves.

      Yes. Of course. Absolutely. The world is going to change, and we need to adapt fast.

      However, addressing the symptoms doesn't mean we should stop trying to mitigate the cause. When someone is sick, you don't only give them a paracetamol for the headache and fever, you also give them some treatment for the underlying infection/injury.

      If we don't reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, we'll only make the problem even worse. If we can keep the rise of sea level to only 2 metres, and prevent it from rising by 3 metres, that extra metre means a lot of problems won't happen that we don't have to deal with.

      20 votes
      1. [3]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [2]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          Exactly. The human race isn't going to wipe itself out from changing the climate. However, it is going to give itself a lot of trouble and hassles. And, some of the human race isn't going to...

          If by "existential" risk you mean one that could completely wipe out human life, I don't think climate change is likely to do that. However, I recommend focusing a bit more on "sub-existential" risks, which merely destroy important features of our civilization.

          Exactly. The human race isn't going to wipe itself out from changing the climate. However, it is going to give itself a lot of trouble and hassles. And, some of the human race isn't going to survive the transition.

          6 votes
          1. Neverland
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            While no guarantee, this paper argues that we can indeed wipe ourselves out. Unchecked climate change could lead to complete human extinction within ~3600 years. This is due to the potential death...

            Exactly. The human race isn't going to wipe itself out from changing the climate.

            While no guarantee, this paper argues that we can indeed wipe ourselves out. Unchecked climate change could lead to complete human extinction within ~3600 years. This is due to the potential death of plankton which produces two thirds of our oxygen. All that is required to meet this paper's threshold is a 7C rise in sea temps. Even the Trump administration agrees on the prediction of 4C by 2100, and there is no reason to think that it would stop at 4C.

            The human physiological impact of global deoxygenation

            The paper linked above is largely based on this paper: Mathematical Modelling of Plankton–Oxygen Dynamics Under the Climate Change

            10 votes
      2. [3]
        Brock_Knifemann
        Link Parent
        I was thinking more along the lines of "it's too late and we done fucked up. We need to start building seawalls and relocating costal communities now."

        They add a sense of urgency. A practical and almost tangible deadline is much better than "umm... look... something bad is coming sometime... but we can't say how bad or when... just that it's coming... but you should definitely do something about this vague threat..."

        I was thinking more along the lines of "it's too late and we done fucked up. We need to start building seawalls and relocating costal communities now."

        6 votes
        1. [2]
          papasquat
          Link Parent
          Too late for what? There have been measurable increases in global temperatures for almost one hundred years. We've been in the throes of climate change for a while now. It's been too late to...

          Too late for what? There have been measurable increases in global temperatures for almost one hundred years. We've been in the throes of climate change for a while now. It's been too late to reduce emissions so much that we wouldn't see a temperature rise for decades.

          It's never been too late to improve our future prospects. Even if we knew for a fact that the temperature would rise by 10c in a decade, it could always be 11c.

          3 votes
          1. Brock_Knifemann
            Link Parent
            "Too late" as in "we've passed the point where we can avoid catastrophic outcome and we need to act for the worst". I agree that we absolutely should still fight to mitigate the results, but as...

            "Too late" as in "we've passed the point where we can avoid catastrophic outcome and we need to act for the worst".

            I agree that we absolutely should still fight to mitigate the results, but as long as there's "hope", we won't do enough. As a group, we're lazy and immediate life issues take precedent. Not that we should shame people for just trying to make rent, I'm talking about action on a governmental level. We need to start now.

            4 votes
      3. Octofox
        Link Parent
        Thats one of the main problems with human psychology that we prefer strongly worded certain messages over "It depends" or "As far as we can tell this seems to be true" Even if those strongly...

        They add a sense of urgency. A practical and almost tangible deadline is much better than "umm... look... something bad is coming sometime... but we can't say how bad or when... just that it's coming... but you should definitely do something about this vague threat..."

        Thats one of the main problems with human psychology that we prefer strongly worded certain messages over "It depends" or "As far as we can tell this seems to be true" Even if those strongly worded sentences are made up and the "As far as we can tell" is backed up by years of good research.

        5 votes
    2. [7]
      Neverland
      Link Parent
      What do see as potential solutions or mitigations that we could pull off?

      We need to be getting ready to deal with the upcoming problems that we've brought on ourselves.

      What do see as potential solutions or mitigations that we could pull off?

      2 votes
      1. [3]
        Brock_Knifemann
        Link Parent
        Here's some ideas: •Get our cars off of petroleum fuels •Get ocean-going ships to use big sails as much as possible (Kevlar sails?) •Accept that having whatever we want whenever we want isn't good...
        • Exemplary

        Here's some ideas:

        •Get our cars off of petroleum fuels
        •Get ocean-going ships to use big sails as much as possible (Kevlar sails?)
        •Accept that having whatever we want whenever we want isn't good for the world and start eating local and buying less
        •Hybrid airplanes
        •Build renewables as fast as we can
        •Build nuclear power plants, and put maximum priority on perfecting thorium reactors
        •Hold industry and manufacturing responsible for the obscene amount of pollution they cause and most frequently weasel out of responsibility for
        •Put mad research $ behind some kind of feasible carbon sequestering tech
        •Start growing crops that are more drought tolerant
        •Upgrade irrigation systems. Most of them have very high evaporation and leaking
        •Hold our politicans accountable
        •Eat the rich

        These are just some ideas, the point being that we need to throw all we have at the problem. No single approach will do enough

        15 votes
        1. [2]
          Neverland
          Link Parent
          This is a solid response, thanks! The only thing I would add is what I will keep repeating until it gets built. A space sunshade at L1. This will give us time to implement everything that you...

          This is a solid response, thanks!

          The only thing I would add is what I will keep repeating until it gets built. A space sunshade at L1. This will give us time to implement everything that you mentioned.

          Industry will love this because it’s the most expensive construction project in human history, and it will give fossil fuel investors time to get right. The only trick is that we have to convince the banks to accept some minimal global tax to fund the multi-trillion dollar cost.

          2 votes
          1. Amarok
            Link Parent
            Realistically we need to look at a couple of areas. The solar shade is the biggest one, since it is the only option that holds out the hope of mitigating or even stopping cold all of the ecosystem...

            Realistically we need to look at a couple of areas. The solar shade is the biggest one, since it is the only option that holds out the hope of mitigating or even stopping cold all of the ecosystem collapse we've started. If there's no solar shade, then there will be a global mass extinction that renders most of the planet an uninhabitable desert no matter what else we do and how successful those measures are. That'll play out within two to three hundred years.

            The next major area is massive power generation. It's going to take orders of magnitude more power to pull that carbon out of the atmosphere than we got by burning fuels putting it there. Basically, we need to generate enough energy to pay back everything we're burned, with massive interest. Again, there is only one solution to that problem: full scale nuclear power development. All the green energy the planet can offer just isn't enough power to get us there.

            I'd argue we need a third prong here as well: genetic programming. We need to genetically engineer corals that can take more punishment, grow in hotter and colder and more acidic waters. We need plankton and seaweed that can handle higher temperatures and produce more oxygen. We need hardier crops. We need more robust insects. The plants and animals we've been depending on need some upgrades to cope with what's coming. Yes, that's releasing modified critters into the wild - if we don't do that, there won't be any wild, so we're past the point where it'll cause harm. Nature will be happy to take whatever we give her and riff on those themes, she's not biased.

            Pull off all of that and we've got a chance at turning this thing around and preventing global desertification. Even then, it's still going to be a shitshow, with total destruction of existing coastal areas a guarantee and most now-arid regions collapsing into full deserts.

            7 votes
      2. [3]
        pleure
        Link Parent
        We could pull off massive geoengineering attempts, that's the nuclear option thought and we'd probably end up fucking things up even worse. Other than that building costal walls in developed...

        We could pull off massive geoengineering attempts, that's the nuclear option thought and we'd probably end up fucking things up even worse.

        Other than that building costal walls in developed countries and preparing for an influx of hundreds of millions if not billions of climate refugees.

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          Amarok
          Link Parent
          The biggest one I've read about is turning the Sahara into a shallow sea. Turns out since it's below sea level already that's not hard to do - once we clear a channel to the ocean the water will...

          The biggest one I've read about is turning the Sahara into a shallow sea. Turns out since it's below sea level already that's not hard to do - once we clear a channel to the ocean the water will do the rest for us.

          There are issues with this, however. No one is really sure exactly what effect that will have on Earth's climate, and it might make things worse, not better. That Sahara-sized ocean will be pure salt water, around a hundred feet deep. Deserts reflect most of the light hitting them. A shallow sea, on the other hand, will absorb all of that sunlight. That means the Sahara sea will be at the boiling point all the time. It'll turn into a gigantic steam generator. The salt will be left behind - and there will be nothing living in that sea or able to drink from it without dying, so it's not a water source on its own.

          All of that steam will turn into fresh water rains somewhere in Africa and bring life to those areas, possibly greening the area around this shallow sea. This could potentially transform northern africa into a jungle-like region that could support life. It'd be a jungle wrapped around a sea bordered on three sides by an ocean, and to the south, unlivable deserts.

          The steam is the question. Water itself is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by several orders of magnitude. We can't predict what will happen if we start pushing that much steam into the atmosphere. If it all comes back out, great. The steam itself should form a cloud over this shallow sea and that cloud will reflect a lot of the light itself, so it won't be as bad as open ocean with regards to absorbing energy.

          It could, however, turn into a runaway evaporate-the-oceans machine. That's a fast-track to Venus and not where we want to go. It'd be reckless and desperate to attempt this without knowing better how it'll all play out long term... and that's why despite talking about this for a hundred years no one is seriously suggesting we do it.

          3 votes
          1. KapteinB
            Link Parent
            Not he entire Sahara, just a relatively small part of it. The largest part of the desert that is below sea level is the Qattara Depression in Egypt. If flooded it would likely be Africa's third...

            Not he entire Sahara, just a relatively small part of it. The largest part of the desert that is below sea level is the Qattara Depression in Egypt. If flooded it would likely be Africa's third largest lake.

  2. pleure
    Link
    There is honestly no hope (short of a carbon-capture technologic breakthrough, the dream of which is the only thing that keeps me from becoming completely fatalist). Stopping the climate disaster...

    There is honestly no hope (short of a carbon-capture technologic breakthrough, the dream of which is the only thing that keeps me from becoming completely fatalist). Stopping the climate disaster would entail a complete restructuring of the world economy away from consumption, an impossible task even in the developed west, let alone the developing world who would be utterly screwed over by such a move. As long as we exist within a capitalist framework nothing will be done until it is far, far too late.

    8 votes
  3. crdpa
    Link
    Here in Brazil people almost elected (there's a second 1 on 1 election, but i think he will win) a guy that wants to take our country out of the Paris Agreement and has no project whatsoever about...

    Here in Brazil people almost elected (there's a second 1 on 1 election, but i think he will win) a guy that wants to take our country out of the Paris Agreement and has no project whatsoever about the environment and the climate change. So, we will probably loose our Amazon rainforest and no help will come from our country in the next 4 years.

    6 votes
  4. [15]
    Thrabalen
    Link
    While I am not 100% convinced that we are the sole creators of the mess we find ourselves in, I am 100% convinced of one thing: we are the only ones who can reverse the trend. The dolphins can't...

    While I am not 100% convinced that we are the sole creators of the mess we find ourselves in, I am 100% convinced of one thing: we are the only ones who can reverse the trend. The dolphins can't do it. The elephants can't do it. The geese can't do it. We are the only species capable of fixing this mess.

    However, I do agree that the "w're out of time" articles are counterproductive. Anyone who's ever been on a diet knows that the normal reaction to an impossible goal isn't to double down and work harder... it's to throw your hands up and surrender.

    4 votes
    1. [2]
      noah
      Link Parent
      What do you think the other causes could be? http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused https://futurism.com/humans-caused-100-of-the-past-centurys-global-warming...

      While I am not 100% convinced that we are the sole creators of the mess we find ourselves in

      What do you think the other causes could be?

      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

      How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels.

      https://futurism.com/humans-caused-100-of-the-past-centurys-global-warming

      In 2014, research in the journal Climate Risk Management using rigorous statistical techniques revealed an objective link between global temperature increases and human activity, with a probability exceeding 99.999 percent

      It's pretty crazy what we've done.

      19 votes
      1. psi
        Link Parent
        xkcd has a nice graphic on this.

        xkcd has a nice graphic on this.

        10 votes
    2. [12]
      pleure
      Link Parent
      Warming is going 60x faster than the end of the last glacial period dude, there's a natural component but it's minuscule compared to the anthropomorphic contribution.

      Warming is going 60x faster than the end of the last glacial period dude, there's a natural component but it's minuscule compared to the anthropomorphic contribution.

      7 votes
      1. [11]
        Thrabalen
        Link Parent
        We are no doubt aggravating the system badly, at the very least. But one thing that's always puzzled me (and this part hasn't a ting to do with your response, personally, but I need to say it),...

        We are no doubt aggravating the system badly, at the very least. But one thing that's always puzzled me (and this part hasn't a ting to do with your response, personally, but I need to say it), is... when I say "I'm not completely sure we're the one and only reason it's happening, but I am completely sure that we're the only ones who can do anything about it and we have to do so"... why is it always the first part people focus on?

        I mean, I'm 100% on your side, guys. We need to stop this because a) we can and b) we need to. If there is a "non-us" component, that means the job will be harder, but we're a species of ingenuity. We can do this.

        2 votes
        1. [5]
          pleure
          Link Parent
          Well, bluntly, because it's wrong. It also helps feed into the "new" narrative that "climate change is happening but it's not our fault / inevitable / etc so we may as well not do anything". That...

          Well, bluntly, because it's wrong. It also helps feed into the "new" narrative that "climate change is happening but it's not our fault / inevitable / etc so we may as well not do anything". That may not be your intent, but you shouldn't give the enemy ammunition you know?

          15 votes
          1. [4]
            Thrabalen
            Link Parent
            This viewpoint, honestly, is what keeps a lot of people quiet on the issue. We are absolutely feeding it, and the extent to which it is happening is absolutely our fault. But, when the house is...

            This viewpoint, honestly, is what keeps a lot of people quiet on the issue. We are absolutely feeding it, and the extent to which it is happening is absolutely our fault. But, when the house is burning down, the cause isn't important at that moment... putting the fire out is. A lot of people are kept away from being vocal on our desire to stop this by the "99% right is 100% wrong" side of the argument.

            I respect and understand the zeal that this issue inspires. But attacking allies to the cause isn't helpful. Again, no one here has done this, but I find that when climate change comes up, it's almost an inevitability that it will, and by that time the tone is so harsh that asking these questions becomes impossible. Thanks for your viewpoint!

            2 votes
            1. [3]
              noah
              Link Parent
              I know you ignored my comment because it didn't fit your narrative of us only being partially to blame, but I don't agree that the cause isn't important. Recognizing that humans are the only cause...

              When the house is burning down, the cause isn't important at that moment... putting the fire out is.

              I know you ignored my comment because it didn't fit your narrative of us only being partially to blame, but I don't agree that the cause isn't important. Recognizing that humans are the only cause is just as, if not more, important because without taking responsibility, we're more likely to only implement stop-gap measures and never learn from our mistakes.

              Not taking responsibility for our effects on the earth also leads to people thinking they're okay with still making the same choices. That's what leads to businesses race to the bottom and consumers acceptance. "Global warming isn't really my fault, so what do I care if I keep supporting unsustainable business practices? I promise I'll help if I need to, but I don't want to change my current life!"

              It's like telling a school bully that one of her classmates killed herself, and we should try to stop that from happening, but it wasn't your fault, bully, even though you tortured her every day and her suicide note said it was your fault. Just realize that we all need to be a little nicer, but don't blame yourself, bully. -- The lack of individually felt responsibility is what leads to a lot of these issues repeating themselves and continually getting worse.

              8 votes
              1. [2]
                Thrabalen
                Link Parent
                I didn't ignore your comment, but you utterly mischaracterized mine. I say "I'm not sure we're the sole cause, but I know we're making things much worse", and that translates to "we're not at all...

                I didn't ignore your comment, but you utterly mischaracterized mine. I say "I'm not sure we're the sole cause, but I know we're making things much worse", and that translates to "we're not at all responsible." The situation is much worse than if we weren't involved, and we are the only ones that can fix it, and we need to fix this sooner not later, but that doesn't matter. My "narrative" is that I don't have a narrative... I am an agnostic, I have questions, not answers. And there's no room for that. Thank you, though, for your part in caring about the situation. I wish more people cared, honestly.

                1. noah
                  Link Parent
                  But if we weren’t around, global warming wouldn’t exist..? I’m confused how you think the situation would be bad if humans didn’t exist? It’s not like the frogs of the world would be burning...

                  But if we weren’t around, global warming wouldn’t exist..? I’m confused how you think the situation would be bad if humans didn’t exist? It’s not like the frogs of the world would be burning fossil fuels and adding to global warming

                  6 votes
        2. [5]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          Here's why... If we are not the sole creators of the mess we find ourselves in, that means there are factors involved that humans didn't cause, which strongly implies that humans can't fix those...

          why is it always the first part people focus on?

          Here's why...

          If we are not the sole creators of the mess we find ourselves in, that means there are factors involved that humans didn't cause, which strongly implies that humans can't fix those other factors. And, if we can only fix our part of the mess, that still leaves mess we can't fix. This is where climate deniers step in and thank you for agreeing with them that there's no point humans doing anything to address climate change because it's out of our control.

          Maybe you didn't mean that with your "not 100% convinced" statement, but that's what other people will take it to mean: if humans aren't the only cause of the problem, then humans can't be the only solution. The climate is going change no matter what we do, so why do anything?

          That's why people focus on your weasel words - because it's much harder to make the case that humans need to change their behaviour when people like you are running around saying that human behaviour isn't the only cause of the problem.

          6 votes
          1. [4]
            Thrabalen
            Link Parent
            The thing is though... that doesn't give us nearly enough credit. We are ingenious creatures, we humans. Even if we weren't at all responsible (and again, I believe us to be, at least, mostly...

            The thing is though... that doesn't give us nearly enough credit. We are ingenious creatures, we humans. Even if we weren't at all responsible (and again, I believe us to be, at least, mostly responsible), I believe we could fix it, or at least ameliorate it to the degree of "unfixed" being negligible.

            So, I'm going to go back to being quiet, which is what always happens in these situations. I believe we aren't the best chance for survival... we're the only chance (again, because the rest of the animal kingdom isn't lifting a finger), but that's just the way it goes.

            1. Algernon_Asimov
              Link Parent
              You're kind of missing the point. You seem to think I'm talking about reality, and about rational people. I'm talking about perceptions and politics and irrational people. You could be totally...

              You're kind of missing the point. You seem to think I'm talking about reality, and about rational people. I'm talking about perceptions and politics and irrational people.

              You could be totally correct in your hypothetical statement that we humans can fix the climate even though we're 0% responsible for messing things up... and it would still be problematic for you to say that you are "not 100% convinced that we are the sole creators of the mess we find ourselves in". That statement gives climate deniers the opening they need to say that, if we didn't cause the problem, then we can't fix the problem - so why bother trying? Even if we humans can fix the climate, we won't if we don't even try - and your statement assists some people to justify their lack of trying.

              4 votes
            2. lmn
              Link Parent
              I disagree with the person above. The issue with saying "Maybe we aren't the only cause" is not that we imply the problem is impossible to solve. The issue is that this claim obfuscates the...

              I disagree with the person above. The issue with saying "Maybe we aren't the only cause" is not that we imply the problem is impossible to solve. The issue is that this claim obfuscates the problem by pretending we don't know what the issue is.

              If we are to act successfully understanding the problem and the causes will be a big part of defining a solution. Pretending that maybe human activity isn't the large majority of the changing climate or that maybe we don't know that it is, is not helpful and incorrect.

              You're allowed to have different opinions on things, but you should ask yourself if your opinion is from ignorance or expertise? For example, have you read more than ten climate science papers that make the case for anthropogenic global warming? Can you identify substantive errors with those papers that other experts agree are real problems? Have you ever done anything to demonstrate a mastery of the relevant systems involved?

              1 vote
            3. papasquat
              Link Parent
              If the global temperature increases that we're seeing right now were mostly a natural occurrence, we'd be virtually powerless to stop it. Our one main way we can impact the climate is by...

              If the global temperature increases that we're seeing right now were mostly a natural occurrence, we'd be virtually powerless to stop it. Our one main way we can impact the climate is by greenhouse gas emissions. If the earth got hotter for some other reason, say, it started orbiting closer to the sun, or the sun got brighter, or vulcanism suddenly increased and belched a lot more natural greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we'd be powerless to stop it. We're just not at the level of technological advancement required for massive global scale geoengineering projects like that.

              We could throw up some token Co2 scrubbers and plant more trees, but it wouldn't have any real effect. The fact that climate change is almost entirely man-made vs natural is actually kind of a good thing, because it means we can dramatically change it. It also means that it doesn't require sci-fi level technology. It just requires a lot of political will.

  5. CrazyOtter
    Link
    Future generations will look back at us and wonder why the hell we didn't change our ways faster given what we know.

    Future generations will look back at us and wonder why the hell we didn't change our ways faster given what we know.

    2 votes
  6. BlackLedger
    Link
    Fortunately, the inevitable political tensions associated with this could also lead to nuclear winter, thereby offsetting the temperature increase.

    Fortunately, the inevitable political tensions associated with this could also lead to nuclear winter, thereby offsetting the temperature increase.

  7. [2]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. KapteinB
      Link Parent
      Don't wait too long. Right-wing populists are on the rise in the north. Our borders will likely be closed when the massive waves of climate refugees start heading our way.

      Don't wait too long. Right-wing populists are on the rise in the north. Our borders will likely be closed when the massive waves of climate refugees start heading our way.

      1 vote
  8. [2]
    OzPoider
    Link
    Climate change is natural. No amount of human intervention can make a change. The planet heats up over thousands of years. Then it cools. Rinse, repeat.

    Climate change is natural. No amount of human intervention can make a change.

    The planet heats up over thousands of years. Then it cools. Rinse, repeat.

    1. [2]
      Comment removed by site admin
      Link Parent
      1. OzPoider
        Link Parent
        I'm not making any claims, I am saying it is natural and normal. Where are the facts that we have 10 years to allegedly get "climate change" under control? You need to provide proof of that....

        I'm not making any claims, I am saying it is natural and normal.

        Where are the facts that we have 10 years to allegedly get "climate change" under control? You need to provide proof of that.

        Climate change is nothing other than a scam propagated by vocal sections of the media. Climate change is totally natural, and something the planet goes through over millions of years as it naturally heats, and cools.

        https://imgur.com/P4Celad.jpg