Is There Hope in New Climate Science? (msn.com) 69
Three climate scientists wrote an encouraging opinion piece for the Washington Post:
One of the biggest obstacles to avoiding global climate breakdown is that so many people think there's nothing we can do about it. They point out that record-breaking heat waves, fires and storms are already devastating communities and economies throughout the world. And they've long been told that temperatures will keep rising for decades to come, no matter how many solar panels replace oil derricks or how many meat-eaters go vegetarian. No wonder they think we're doomed.
But climate science actually doesn't say this. To the contrary, the best climate science you've probably never heard of suggests that humanity can still limit the damage to a fraction of the worst projections if — and, we admit, this is a big if — governments, businesses and all of us take strong action starting now.
For many years, the scientific rule of thumb was that a sizable amount of temperature rise was locked into the Earth's climate system. Scientists believed — and told policymakers and journalists, who in turn told the public — that even if humanity hypothetically halted all heat-trapping emissions overnight, carbon dioxide's long lifetime in the atmosphere, combined with the sluggish thermal properties of the oceans, would nevertheless keep global temperatures rising for 30 to 40 more years. Since shifting to a zero-carbon global economy would take at least a decade or two, temperatures were bound to keep rising for at least another half-century.
But guided by subsequent research, scientists dramatically revised that lag time estimate down to as little as three to five years. That is an enormous difference that carries paradigm-shifting and broadly hopeful implications for how people, especially young people, think and feel about the climate emergency and how societies can respond to it.
This revised science means that if humanity slashes emissions to zero, global temperatures will stop rising almost immediately. To be clear, this is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Global temperatures will not fall if emissions go to zero, so the planet's ice will keep melting and sea levels will keep rising. But global temperatures will stop their relentless climb, buying humanity time to devise ways to deal with such unavoidable impacts.
In short, we are not irrevocably doomed — or at least we don't have to be, if we take bold, rapid action.
But climate science actually doesn't say this. To the contrary, the best climate science you've probably never heard of suggests that humanity can still limit the damage to a fraction of the worst projections if — and, we admit, this is a big if — governments, businesses and all of us take strong action starting now.
For many years, the scientific rule of thumb was that a sizable amount of temperature rise was locked into the Earth's climate system. Scientists believed — and told policymakers and journalists, who in turn told the public — that even if humanity hypothetically halted all heat-trapping emissions overnight, carbon dioxide's long lifetime in the atmosphere, combined with the sluggish thermal properties of the oceans, would nevertheless keep global temperatures rising for 30 to 40 more years. Since shifting to a zero-carbon global economy would take at least a decade or two, temperatures were bound to keep rising for at least another half-century.
But guided by subsequent research, scientists dramatically revised that lag time estimate down to as little as three to five years. That is an enormous difference that carries paradigm-shifting and broadly hopeful implications for how people, especially young people, think and feel about the climate emergency and how societies can respond to it.
This revised science means that if humanity slashes emissions to zero, global temperatures will stop rising almost immediately. To be clear, this is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Global temperatures will not fall if emissions go to zero, so the planet's ice will keep melting and sea levels will keep rising. But global temperatures will stop their relentless climb, buying humanity time to devise ways to deal with such unavoidable impacts.
In short, we are not irrevocably doomed — or at least we don't have to be, if we take bold, rapid action.
If it's Saturday ... (Score:2, Troll)
it's time for another Climate Apocalypse post on /. I like regularity. Like the ol' commercial used to say: "Do you suffer from ... irregularity?"
Re: (Score:1)
> "Do you suffer from ... irregularity?"
Nope. I consistently spray fart all bowel movements. Thanks media induced gastrointestinal issues due to anxiety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As the summary understatedly says: "It's a pretty big if".
Getting the entire world to voluntarily change its habits? That's a humongous "if".
Getting governments to enact laws to force people to change their habits and/or companies to change their products? That's a whopping behemoth of an "if".
Me? I wouldn't hold the "this is good news" party just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting rid of all the "baby products" would be a good start.
Babies are a huge resource sink. New mothers are a really easy target for advertisers. Good old capitalism!
Re: If it's Saturday ... (Score:2)
Yeah. It's called "education".
Re:The biggest obstacle to climate science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes. Acid Rain. The Y2K of climate.
Quite literally. As in: Serious measures were taken and that actually helped it not be a problem anymore in the long run.
Without those measures, well, things would've been a whole lot worse.
But of course people think it's all "Fake News", because nothing happened, and are too stupid to realize that nothing happened because action was actually taken to prevent things from happening.
Oh well.
Re:The biggest obstacle to climate science? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget the ozone layer.
Governments forced companies to use a more expensive solution and things got better as a result. It took a decade or two but it got better.
Nobody had to go without spray products either. Amazing!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. Acid Rain. The Y2K of climate.
... and Y2K like acid rain was a real problem. I was part of a project that spent three years and a whack of money identifying and fixing problems prior to the deadline. We had only two or three minor or obscure errors on Jan 1, 2000 but if we had not put in the effort there would have been financially catastrophic problems. We know that.
Media and pundits, upon lack of obvious meltdown, declared it an exaggerated non-issue. Go figure.
Maybe it is best for everyone to get a taste of hell before we go s
Y2K part deux (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. We know that. And idiots that think it was all 'not a big deal' just really really annoy me.
They just show they really have no clue what the hell they're talking about.
It was 'not a big deal' because millions upon millions of manhours got put into it :P
Re: The biggest obstacle to climate science? (Score:2)
Media and pundits, upon lack of obvious meltdown, declared it an exaggerated non-issue. Go figure.
So if current climate debate is any indication, year 2038 will be a giant "I fsck-ing told you so!1!!" vindictive moment for every nerd then still alive... *gnihihi* :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Acid rain
You do know that forcing steel mills, coal fired plants, and other manufacturers to install scrubbers reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide being sent into the air, don't you? This is turn slowed the destruction of downwind forests devastated by that acid rain falling, not to mention the animal life in rivers and streams affected by polluting rain.
This is what forests look like [duckduckgo.com] when acid rain falls for decades.
But yeah, nothing but an absurd prediction. Next thing you'll tell us is that brown haze
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that we should limit pollution population
Fixed that for you. Too bad I can't figure out the strike command on /..
Re:Don't worry everyone. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't worry everyone. (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, just a realist ...
Uneducated realist, I might add...
Boy, where do I start. Education for example, since it's already the topic with you: there's tons of data that with onset of proper education, and in particular with chances to a better, more independent life for women, birth rates plummet from 8-9 kids to barely population-sustain or even decline levels (1-2 kids per pair).
Biology: there are many examples of mammals that become less sexually active, even asexual, and infertile, under overpopulation
Old tactics (Score:2, Insightful)
Quantities are limited. Act now. Only days left. Call now while supplies last.
Yeah, we've heard them all before. Usually on late night TV with an annoying spokesperson (Jimmy Walker, I'm looking at you).
It's a preferable narrative (Score:2)
Better get started with carbon capture (Score:2)
Because "everyone taking bold action" is not happening. Are we going to invade countries with nukes for burning coal? Best we can do is impose tariffs on dirty goods and let them do whatever they do for domestic use. Tariffs can pay for cleaning up their share of the mess.
Biomass capture is good because it also produces hydrocarbon fuel which is more efficient than batteries for many applications like aviation. But whatever is most cost effective - algae looms, alkaline minerals, chemical cycles powered by
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Like China and India are going to let US run their energy sector. Also railroads are practical only for narrow scenario of close by big cities. The point of aviation is route flexibility, not just speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are also pretty invested in coal, and are building coal powered generators that will still be running when I die.
Trust is an issue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel as though the trust of the average person in the scientific community is at a low ebb.
I think that's half true. Trust in the scientific community is at a low, but trust in science is at a high.
Science should give us the facts (Score:1)
Indeed (Score:2)
According to the IPCC we have affected global temperatures since 1950 in a measurable way. Therefore the entire warming since the last Ice Age, and since the Little Ice Age, which is far more than we have since 1950, is due to natural causes. The greenhouse effect of CO2, while it is persistent, is slight, and easily overwhelmed on any significant timescale by other natural effects.
As to the article. China, India. End of discussion.
Won't happen (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Darnit, we forgot to exclude WAR (Score:2)
now we need to wait till the next COP session to fix this oversite.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but we won't. (Score:2)
Our civilisation is completely addicted to CO2 emmitting fuels.
Of course we can mitigate the inevitable.
We can still mitigate the effects of the Holocene Extinction.
But it's going to happen.
And we won't survive it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is, basically, fight fire with fire.
https://xkcd.com/1338/ [xkcd.com] would play into that, I guess - since sheep, pigs, cows, goats, horses and pets all depend upon humans for their survival.
Let's also hope that the fossil fuel wells are closed bef
Here's the problem with this conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Never before in human history has all of humanity had to "take bold action" which basically means stopping everyone's entire way of life and radically changing it regardless of the unintended consequences based on a theory. You'll never be able to convince everyone to do that. You'll barely be able to convince half the population to do that and they sure as hell won't put up with it once they see that their supposed betters aren't doing that. The past two years is all the proof you need about human behav
Re: (Score:2)
Never before in human history has all of humanity had to "take bold action" which basically means stopping everyone's entire way of life and radically changing it regardless of the unintended consequences based on a theory.
Yeah, it's not like we got everyone to isolate, shutdown businesses or wear a mask based on hypothesis that it might curb a pandemic. Probably not possible, just like that wasn't possible.
China. India. End of conversation (Score:2)
However much scientists blather on the reality is that for the next 40 years CO2 will be increasing as developing countries develop.
Global temperatures would fall (Score:2)
The article claims that "Global temperatures will not fall if emissions go to zero", but I don't see how that is possible. The oceans and the land are carbon sinks. "About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical exchange."
https://www.earthobservatory.n... [nasa.gov]
If emissions go to zero the sinks will still be operating, and GHG concentration would decline. So it seems to me that global temperature would also gradually decline.
Stop whining for someone else to do something (Score:2)
And do it yourself. Stop buying plastic junk. Stop buying plastic clothing. Stop buying new gadgets every year. Stop buying bottled water. Stop driving your car everywhere. Stop running your AC super cold. There is a lot more you can do, but you can and must do it yourself. You don't need to wait for some expert to formulate policy from the top and dictate it to you - you can and must do it yourself. The answers are clear and are staring your right in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
The very interesting and curious thing about the climate movement is that its adherents keep on telling us to do things because climate that, if their own theory is correct, can have no effect on it.
None of what you are suggesting will have the slightest effect on global CO2 emissions or on global temperatures. This is not a question of continuing to live in society as it is, while changing my personal consumption habits. The only thing that will reduce emissions as much as the advocates claim to be necess
Re: Stop whining for someone else to do something (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s only inevitable if people keep up the demand for oil based products like plastics etc. governments are totally incapable of bold action. It is people who do small actions all the time that make the difference. The climate cult kicks and screams for government to do something because they are too weak stupid and lazy to do small easy things that all add up themselves. Better to rant and rave than take action.
Emergency option (Score:2)
There's hope in an emergency option. If the climate and heat really do get out of control, we could experiment with purposefully creating a nuclear winter. It's win-win. Either it works or we go out with a bang!
How about dealing with it? (Score:2)
Instead of only trying to stop GW perhaps we should also try to adapt to it as well.
There is very little we can really do to stop the GW from happening. We cannot make a big enough dent in the suspected problem gasses. A 1% drop won't do anything real. A 10% drop will slow it down a little. And nobody would really want to live in that world. It would be grim with people dying and their decaying corpses making it worse not better. A 50% drop is all that can be done by somehow disappearing all humans without
Sorry, it's rotten (Score:2)
So-called climate "science" is about as credible as Wuhan market "science." These folks' livelihoods depend on us swallowing a particular narrative, and other points of view are suppressed. Once some "science" becomes politicized, you can't believe a damn thing anyone says.
Look at David Keith's Case for Climate Engineering (Score:2)
A shocking book for some, and probably one of the sources of Stephenson's new book about a billionaire deciding to solve global warming personally.
The surprise in the book is that the sulfur in the high atmosphere wouldn't move around that much, so you could sow only the places you wanted to cool: just the arctic, say.
Not a long-term solution, but the stopgap gives us time for the longer project.
Is There Hope in New Climate Science? (Score:1)
Go! $4.5 trillion and 60,000 reduction teams, (Score:2)
Have you heard the advice: Divide a large problem into small pieces. Solve the small pieces with an eye to address the large problem?
I have been working on the global warming problem at my website: www.lowco2america.com
My latest writing is I am using ideas from Cybernetics, Command and Control in Animal and Machine by Norbert Weiner at this URL:
hhttps://www.lowco2america.com/2022/01/cybernetics-how-do-we-get-fastest.html
Do visit and do leave a comment, thanks.
Bold rapid action? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, it's bunkum. So, did Al Gore's prediction that there would be no ice in the Artic come true? We're way past his prediction and that was a total lie. What about the other stuff? No, that didn't come true either. Remember more and worse hurricanes? We've had fewer and weaker hurricanes. So there's no question that we've been lied to.
So what about the 1930s being the hottest decade of the 1900s? There was far less CO2 back then, so how come the 1990s wasn't the hottest? That's what we in science call a co
"possible" isn't reality (Score:2)
Yes and No (Score:2)
Can we stop climate apocalypse? Yes.
Will we? Of course not, since that takes money.