Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Is There Hope in New Climate Science? (msn.com) 69

Posted by EditorDavid from the encouraging-signs dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is There Hope in New Climate Science? More

Is There Hope in New Climate Science?

Comments Filter:

  • 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)

      by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      > "Do you suffer from ... irregularity?"

      Nope. I consistently spray fart all bowel movements. Thanks media induced gastrointestinal issues due to anxiety.

    • This is actually good news, not apocalyptic news.

      • 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.

  • Old tactics (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    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).

  • I'm not saying we *are* doomed but even if the evidence pointed that way it would be an untenable position for governments and the scientific community.

  • 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

    • Foreign aid is cheaper than invasion. We build them nuclear power plants and make money off of them by controlling their fuel cycle. SMR tech is pretty amazing. We build them electrified railroads to replace short-distance aviation as well. The US needs to launch an equivalent of the Chinese OBOR program, but focused on climate.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by iamacat ( 583406 )

        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.

        • China and India already have plans to nuclearize their power grids on their own - they're much more invested in the idea of nuclear power than the backward USA. Trains can stop at intermediate points much more easily than errrplanes.

          • They are also pretty invested in coal, and are building coal powered generators that will still be running when I die.

  • I feel as though the trust of the average person in the scientific community is at a low ebb. The scientific community must take its share of the responsibility that trust has eroded to such an extent. Sadly, I don't see it rebounding in the short-term.

    • 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.

  • I don't think it's the role of science to give us hope, save in the general sense of guiding us in the right direction. It's technology that should give us hope, whether it's to solve the problem or to escape to a new world. So if climate science says there's still a "chance" (the general sense of hope), then the technology to avoid the catastrophe should be developed or widely distributed now.

  • Won't happen (Score:3)

    by jdawgnoonan ( 718294 ) on Saturday February 26, 2022 @03:28PM (#62306683)
    There will never be a net 0 carbon emissions world. You know why? No one who isn't an extremist wants to live in that world. We don't have to be at net 0 to survive as a species. Maybe scientists should try figuring out the happy medium. I for one won't quit eating beef, having canine companions, stop driving or flying, or most other things. I won't be becoming a vegetarian nor will I be eating bugs. And if you try to make me do those things I will be a part of the rebellion that will prevent you from doing it.
    • Net zero. As long as you have sufficient plant growth to absorb the CO2 generated by cattle and your pets, you can still be at net zero. You can still drive an electric car. Flying? Replace with higher-speed electric trains for shorter distance, hydrogen produced by nuclear power for longer trips.
  • COP26 neglected to forbid needless wasteful wars and what happens? war!
    now we need to wait till the next COP session to fix this oversite.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jzanu ( 668651 )
      This is actually a serious concern [ceobs.org]. That said, if stopping Putin's insanity requires setting every oil field in Russia aflame, it would still be worthwhile for preventing the destruction caused by the alternative of allowing him to kill and destroy indiscriminately.
  • That's the problem. We won't put the genie back in the bottle.
    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.
    • Depends ... the solution may be a virus that massively depresses human fertility for a generation of two. Lower population growth followed by reduction will buy us time.
      • Wow. Okay - so are you suggesting that our future depends unleashing an ebola-like viral pandemic that makes Covid look like seasonal flu, in order to prevent global catastrophe? Because death is (by far and away) the easiest means of depressing human fertility.

        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

  • 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

    • 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.

  • However much scientists blather on the reality is that for the next 40 years CO2 will be increasing as developing countries develop.

  • 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.

  • 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)

      by Budenny ( 888916 )

      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

      • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Interresting. Alt.science made it into /.

  • 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.

  • This probably means giving "climate scientists" more money. Politicians love to use the climate as a way to distance themselves from the ordinary plebeians who voted for them as they build mansions by the seashore for themselves.
  • "Slash emissions to zero" - that requires unification of Governments, citizenry, and enterprise to first accept that climate change is real and caused by man, and second, put human life before profit. Just look through the commenters here on /. as proof almost ½ America doesn’t believe climate change is real. © 70% of the GOP denies climate change. Big oil, as artic sea ice withdraws to record lows, races to drill in newly opened waters. There is absolutely nothing to change minds that

  • Can we stop climate apocalypse? Yes.
    Will we? Of course not, since that takes money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close