Climate Change Target of 2C Is 'Dead' (theguardian.com) 111
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The pace of global heating has been significantly underestimated, according to renowned climate scientist Prof James Hansen, who said the international 2C target is "dead." A new analysis by Hansen and colleagues concludes that both the impact of recent cuts in sun-blocking shipping pollution, which has raised temperatures, and the sensitivity of the climate to increasing fossil fuels emissions are greater than thought. The group's results are at the high end of estimates from mainstream climate science but cannot be ruled out, independent experts said. If correct, they mean even worse extreme weather will come sooner and there is a greater risk of passing global tipping points, such as the collapse of the critical Atlantic ocean currents.
Hansen, at Columbia University in the US, sounded the alarm to the general public about climate breakdown in testimony he gave to a UN congressional committee in 1988. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) defined a scenario which gives a 50% chance to keep warming under 2C -- that scenario is now impossible," he said. "The 2C target is dead, because the global energy use is rising, and it will continue to rise." The new analysis said global heating is likely to reach 2C by 2045, unless solar geoengineering is deployed. [...] In the new study, published in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Hansen's team said: "Failure to be realistic in climate assessment and failure to call out the fecklessness of current policies to stem global warming is not helpful to young people."
[...] Hansen said the point of no return could be avoided, based on the growing conviction of young people that they should follow the science. He called for a carbon fee and dividend policy, where all fossil fuels are taxed and the revenue returned to the public. "The basic problem is that the waste products of fossil fuels are still dumped in the air free of charge," he said. He also backed the rapid development of nuclear power. Hansen also supported research on cooling the Earth using controversial geoengineering techniques to block sunlight, which he prefers to call "purposeful global cooling." He said: "We do not recommend implementing climate interventions, but we suggest that young people not be prohibited from having knowledge of the potential and limitations of purposeful global cooling in their toolbox." Political change is needed to achieve all these measures, Hansen said: "Special interests have assumed far too much power in our political systems. In democratic countries the power should be with the voter, not with the people who have the money. That requires fixing some of our democracies, including the US."
Hansen, at Columbia University in the US, sounded the alarm to the general public about climate breakdown in testimony he gave to a UN congressional committee in 1988. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) defined a scenario which gives a 50% chance to keep warming under 2C -- that scenario is now impossible," he said. "The 2C target is dead, because the global energy use is rising, and it will continue to rise." The new analysis said global heating is likely to reach 2C by 2045, unless solar geoengineering is deployed. [...] In the new study, published in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Hansen's team said: "Failure to be realistic in climate assessment and failure to call out the fecklessness of current policies to stem global warming is not helpful to young people."
[...] Hansen said the point of no return could be avoided, based on the growing conviction of young people that they should follow the science. He called for a carbon fee and dividend policy, where all fossil fuels are taxed and the revenue returned to the public. "The basic problem is that the waste products of fossil fuels are still dumped in the air free of charge," he said. He also backed the rapid development of nuclear power. Hansen also supported research on cooling the Earth using controversial geoengineering techniques to block sunlight, which he prefers to call "purposeful global cooling." He said: "We do not recommend implementing climate interventions, but we suggest that young people not be prohibited from having knowledge of the potential and limitations of purposeful global cooling in their toolbox." Political change is needed to achieve all these measures, Hansen said: "Special interests have assumed far too much power in our political systems. In democratic countries the power should be with the voter, not with the people who have the money. That requires fixing some of our democracies, including the US."
China (Score:2)
China is building 95% of the new coal plants globally. https://www.carbonbrief.org/ch... [carbonbrief.org]
China's CO2 emissions rose from 10 billion tonnes a year in 2004 to 12 billion in 2024 https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
You are deliberately misleading those who can be misled, or have been misled yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't, we're getting rid of the agency that gives foreign aid. It would have to be paid for them out of Musk's own pockets. Except Musk has those billiions targeted to the gamers who twink his accounts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"I have no children "
Probably not by choice though is it Incel?
Re: (Score:2)
I think his post was sarcasm. Pretending to be an incel for the snarky aspect of it all. Could be wrong though, detecting sarcasm on Slashdot is difficult.
2C may be dead (Score:2, Insightful)
But it's no excuse not to try to avoid going over 3C or 4C.
And the best way to achieve that is by cutting into the fat instead of the muscle. The fat is in high per capita emissions countries such as the USA, Australia, UAE, Canada, Qatar, Russia, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:2C may be dead (Score:5, Insightful)
If you reduce the population you reduce emissions along with pollution. Knock of 2+ billion people and things will get better.
Re: (Score:2)
The fairest way to do that is through birth control laws.
Re:2C may be dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Err.....most western nations are already suffering birth declines, most of which have slipped below "replacement" levels....
Re: (Score:1)
"31.8% of all live births were to non-UK-born mothers in England and Wales (an increase from 30.3% in 2022)"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2023#:~:text=31.8%25%20of%20all%20live%20births,increasing%20from%2035.8%25%20in%202022.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Opposing a belief system is not racist.
Opposing the immigration of people whose belief system you believe is not beneficial to the good of your country is not racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: It is usually found with sentences starting with, "Those people..." But, then again, that assumes you're listening at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if that trend keeps up, you lose your culture..and well, you become a different country.
At some point, it will cease to be the "UK" in all but name.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: For the avoidance of doubt, I think posting pro-LGBTQ+ content should be allowed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Err.....most western nations are already suffering birth declines, most of which have slipped below "replacement" levels....
Which would be a good thing from an environmental perspective. Heck, it would be even better if those western countries didn't have policies to try to raise fertility rates.
However, almost all of western countries have rising population, when you take immigration into account. So the end result is bad for the environment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The fairest way to do that is through birth control laws.
Nah, we'll do it the old fashioned way. Throw the world into complete financial chaos, then start a giant war. At least, that seems to be the current plan in action.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, even that doesn't work. The world population just prior to WWII (the biggest war in history) and towards the end of the Great Depression (the worst financial chaos in history) was 2.3 billion. Now it is 8 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we'll do it the old fashioned way. Throw the world into complete financial chaos, then start a giant war. At least, that seems to be the current plan in action.
I'm Canadian and thus in Trump's recent crosshairs, but all along I have been pretty convinced that Trump is not going to crash the stock market. It is probably the one thing whatever people who have influence over him won't let him do. Pretty sure plenty of Republicans were going WTF earlier this week.
I expect any wars will be subject the the same rule above.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we'll do it the old fashioned way. Throw the world into complete financial chaos, then start a giant war. At least, that seems to be the current plan in action.
I'm Canadian and thus in Trump's recent crosshairs, but all along I have been pretty convinced that Trump is not going to crash the stock market. It is probably the one thing whatever people who have influence over him won't let him do. Pretty sure plenty of Republicans were going WTF earlier this week. I expect any wars will be subject the the same rule above.
Wars can be good for the stock market, if done properly. I'm not sure that the stock market will be "stable" with the Musk shenanigan train trampling through the federal government, but I don't see the market dipping what with the horrible ripping sound coming from the circles of regulation. But there will be chaos through the rest of the economy.
I know, I know. The Stock Market is the only part of the economy that matters. Sometimes I slip off the narrative for a moment and look at the rest of the univers
Re: (Score:2)
Wars can be good for the stock market, if done properly.
Unfortunately yes.
I'm not sure that the stock market will be "stable" with the Musk shenanigan train trampling through the federal government
Possibly, but I can see the appeal. I'd not be averse to someone coming in and slashing our federal government big time too, it has become an out of control monstrosity trying to be every thing to everybody.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, so are you suggesting we kill the top 2 billion emitters? Or that is just a lame excuse for doing nothing?
Re: (Score:1)
More likely it means what it always means; kill poor people. This is just eugenics restated... Instead of killing people because they have an undesirable skin color or don't have a bank account, you're killing them for everyone's good. That they will be people whose skin color is one you don't like or that they don't have a bank account is just a coincidence.
Nobody is suggesting this [Re:2C may be dead] (Score:3)
More likely it means what it always means; kill poor people
No. What it means is that this post is a troll, attempting to start flames by posting something deliberately outrageous to take the discussion off-topic. NOBODY is suggesting killing people to reduce the population. The people who suggest population reduction would help all suggest doing it by reducing birth rate.
And that you are a troll for feeding into it.
Re: (Score:2)
1) a very small set of well meaning lefties who have somehow bought into the idea that we can convince an entire species to go against it's biological programming.
These people are well-meaning but omfg it's like they were born yesterday. Not. Gonna. Happen.
2) A bunch of people who present reasonable-sounding arguments for population control, and then single out the bro
Straw man arguments [Re:Nobody is suggesting this] (Score:2)
Maybe they're trolling, but their point is mostly accurate. Most people suggesting population reduction fall into two categories:
The people in both of these categories suggest reducing birth rate. None of them are suggesting killing people.
The people saying "reduce population? Sure, let's kill people!" are trolls. All of them.
1) a very small set of well meaning lefties who have somehow bought into the idea that we can convince an entire species to go against it's biological programming.
Observational data shows that there is, in fact, no biological programming to increase population. People who have access to birth control use it.
Evolution, being completely blind and undirected, simply implemented the simple solution: people want sex, sex produces babies. No "biological programming" nee
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points, you'd get them. You make it sound so simple.... maybe even our politicians will be able to understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
How about requiring those countries to clean up? With sanctions if they don't.
Since tariffs seem to be the favourite tool at the moment, how about setting them based on per-capita emissions of the whole country?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a very good idea. But that would mean big tariffs on polluting countries like the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the idea, punish them for screwing up the climate and provide a strong incentive to clean up their act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Genocide is one of my favorites. The band. Also, Anthrax is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
If you reduce the population you reduce emissions along with pollution. Knock of 2+ billion people and things will get better.
But only if you "knock off" the right people, those who emit a lot of CO2. These are the (US-)Americans, the Europeans and possibly the Chinese.
And don't call it "knock off", be truthful and call it "kill".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you should lose your fixation with emissions, because it has not worked, will not work with the best will in the world, and will impoverish us all.
Instead, let's turn our attention to ways that will actually cool the planet, not cost trillions and can be implented quickly.
Time for some science and economics to be applied to solutions, not just the causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should lose your fixation with emissions, because it has not worked, will not work with the best will in the world, and will impoverish us all.
Instead, let's turn our attention to ways that will actually cool the planet, not cost trillions and can be implented quickly.
Time for some science and economics to be applied to solutions, not just the causes.
It's time for you to familiarize yourself with the wealth of science and economics that has already been done.
Re: (Score:2)
And this science and economics says that reducing emissions is the only way, and will save us in the real world as we blow by yet another temperature milestone? Please show me the alternatives that have been evaluated by this science and economics, and how they have been rejected, because I can't find it. Just one credible study.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon capture has been evaluated and is still too expensive. Reducing emissions is pretty easy right now. We just need to switch from coal to pretty much anything else to produce electricity and it's a good starting point. No carbon capture, giant mirror, or giant sun shade will be as cheap.
Re:2C may be dead (Score:4, Informative)
You missed the two largest and growing emitters on the planet: China and India. With their output alone they swamp any improvements in the west. Of course, the Chinese will tell you to sod off, and the Indians are not so eager to stay in 3rd world status, either.
Re:2C may be dead (Score:4, Interesting)
No I didn't. On the contrary, I despise those in high emissions countries such as Canada and USA pointing fingers at those emitting 1/5 per capita or less.
China is now at 11 Mg CO2 eq per person. India 2.9. The EU is at 7.2 and the USA at 17.6. So yes, the EU can criticize China. But definitely not the USA. And India is still well below the world average of 6.5.
Are their emissions rising? Of course. But as long as it's lower than that of the USA, EU, and world average, they are not the ones to blame.
Re: (Score:1)
Despise away, but per capita is not an excuse for ignoring the total output.
Canada is tiny, and it is working on improving. China and India are massive, and their total output keeps going up.
If you're trying to stitch up someone with a sucking chest wound, you don't focus on the papercut on their index finger.
Total emissions. [Re:2C may be dead] (Score:5, Informative)
Despise away, but per capita is not an excuse for ignoring the total output.
Both.
But if you focus on total output of CO2, you do know that the U.S. is number one, right, with by far the highest total CO2 emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Or, wait, did you mean total rate of emissions? In that case, U.S. is "merely" number two.
Re:2C may be dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's just split China and India into 100 countries. Problem solved. None of them would have a big total output!
Are you really asking 1.3 billion Indians to emit less than 39 million Canadians just because they happen to be grouped into a more populous artificial political entity ?
Canada is tiny, and it is working on improving. China and India are massive, and their total output keeps going up.
When their per capita emissions surpass Canada (if it ever happens), I'll start saying India is more a problem than Canada.
But you also have to look at historical emissions. Polluting 15t/year for 100 years is much worse than polluting 15t/year for 10 years.
Emissions of China and India were close to 0 until the past say, 30 years. Western countries are emitting (at various levels) since 1850.
Re: (Score:2)
It's political. I didn't create countries, I just live in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, it seems you didn't get the point.
The argument that somehow a Canadian should be allowed to emit as much as 32 Indians is not valid. Or even twice as much.
No matter how fast Canada is reducing its emissions and India is increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
And they should rightfully tell you to sod off. You're own emissions are far higher than that of a person in China or India. What makes you more deserving of energy than them? Why are you so awesome?
As it stands China's green energy production is outpacing traditional energy growth in absolute terms. If the Chinese ever do get to the point where they consume the same amount of energy as a western country per capita, they will have done so with just a small fraction of the footprint.
Given the long history of
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, the cheapest way to produce energy is methane. But one needs to be very careful. The cost of solar power will soon be cheaper than methane. That's why you see China installing so much solar power. Even though China uses a lot of coal (more expensive tha
Know when there were even more sun- (Score:2, Interesting)
If "recent cuts in sun-blocking shipping pollution" allowed temperatures to increase, how much of this increase is because we cleaned up other sources? Those are the same emissions that we have been reducing from land-based sources for 50 years.
To me, it sounds like this renowned climate scientist is saying that envi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Iâ(TM)m guessing that the planet has the cleanest air, particulate wise, it has had since the last extinction level event cleared up."
Unlikely.On a global scale forest fires are pretty insignificant and any forest fire that burnt a huge area wouldn't happen again for decades simply because there'd be so little to burn.
The air was probably far cleaner - globally, maybe not locally - before the industrial revolution because even though wood and coke was burnt in medieval times the population was so low
Re: (Score:3)
You should read up on Canada's annual BC wildfires. The smoke blows east and causes significant pollution coast to coast. You can smell it over 4000km away, and it causes respiratory issues.
Re: (Score:1)
Ice cave (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry are you a climatologist - or are you just some random know-nothing who hasn't done any learning on climate and is hypothesizing that they alone have discovered the reasons for climate change.
I post this because you have no facts, no nothing - and you're posting as if there isn't extensive research on this topic that already exists.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all emissions are equal. Burning coal has a net positive impact on global warming. Pumping SOx into the air has a net negative effect. The problem with emissions is we cleaned up only the SOx which are not greenhouse gasses, but only blockers. End result a typical ship pumps out just as much CO2 without the blocking effect. Unfortunately the answer isn't to just blast sulfur into the air. Acid rain and all that.
To me, it sounds like this renowned climate scientist is saying that environmentalists traded one problem for another
That's exactly how the world works. There's no such thing as a solution that involves no trad
Cumulative [Re:Know when there were even more ...] (Score:3)
If "recent cuts in sun-blocking shipping pollution" allowed temperatures to increase,
Do note that injecting sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere blocking sunlight causes a short-term decrease in temperature (they rain out on a time scale short compared to years). If you want to keep the temperature decreased, you have to keep putting sulfur in the atmosphere, and if the rate you input sulfur into the atmosphere is constant, the effect on temperature is constant.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, causes a long term increase in temperature, and so the effect is cumulative. If we put a constant
Re: (Score:2)
For all we know, we've been artificially cooling the planet and now it's returning to equilibrium.
No, we DO know, and we know very accurately.
The climate records don't come from a victorian gentleman in a tweed suit looking at a homemade mercury thermometer in 1861. Well, those records are considered, but they are far from the only source. Many more records come from ice cores, from both north and south of the planet, and glaciers in between. They come from tree rings and marine sediments around the globe. Entrained in these ices and sediments are traces of atmospheric composition (CO2 from the atmosphe
On the plus side (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By some accounts, this has already happened.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Have you ever lived in Texas? It's that way at least part of the year, every year.
The year I moved to Texas, it snowed in Austin the same day I got there for my interview... Within a year, there was a month where it was over 100 degrees every day, never got below 75% humidity, and there was 99% humidity every night. It killed a whole bunch of people.
Every year, when the first rains hit, there are thousands of accidents involving people who forget how cars work when roads are wet.
I got the fuck out as soon a
Troll means "made up to make you mad" (Score:2)
These are my actual opinions, derived from my actual experiences.
Marking them "troll" is a means of conceding the argument; you don't have one, so you lash out at the person expressing the feelings that make you sad.
Thanks for proving my points about Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
There were zero scientific predictions ever made saying "we are all supposed to be swimming by 2012". I think you are confusing actual science with a very bad Hollywood movie.
Isn't it interesting.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My solution involves taking billions of dollars away from billionaires. Ending the spread of international corporations. Ending globalism. Buying local. Ensuring that the middle class have clean air and safe food.
For us to avoid a global catastrophe is going to require a lot of major changes to our society. The key change is that the accumulation of wealth as a status symbol and a source of political power needs to end as soon as possible. We're putting people with the worst personality traits in charge of decisions that will impact several generations of people on Earth. It's a mad system and it must END.
Given your solution is not going to happen, I'd suggest instead you try and enjoy the life you have. You only get one.
3C will also be dead to unless... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually nuclear power was killed for a long time by the eco zealots , not the oil industry (who couldn't care less, oil isn't used much for electricity generation around the world except as diesel in generators which is nothing compared to vehicle usage) so if you want to blame anyone start with CND who disingenously compared nuclear power with nuclear weapons then on from there through Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Extinction Rebellion and 101 other tin pot hippy nutters.
Re: (Score:2)
The eco zealot organizations were funded or even founded by the fossil fuel industry. Friends of the Earth was specifically founded by an oil baron. Greenpeace sells fossil fuels today. The Sierra Club were paid to oppose nuclear energy by the fossil fuel industry. Most of the smaller ones received funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
funny (Score:2)
Isn't it funny - ironic, really - that these "it's different than we thought!" only go one way?
And they assert it with such absolute certainty - no "yeah, this is a climate model, #405599 that we've run, and all of the previous ones were off the mark. But this one we got right."
Meanwhile in Canada (Score:1)
There is now a consensus between the two alternance parties in Canada about rolling back the carbon fee and dividend system.
I wish we could sue these people out of power so bad they'd think twice about seeking power against general interest. At this point, legislating against scientifically back effective climate action like that should be unconstitutional and disqualifying.
Link climate spending to defense spending (Score:2, Offtopic)
DOOM DOOM DOOM (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
China can produce electricity for half of what the US does. Part of that is complete environmental disregard. But part of it is that about 25% of China's electrici
Re: (Score:3)
Inevitable since COP1 (Score:3)
Climate scientists do not like discussing when we crossed various equilibrium levels because it is impossible to back-project to any year with 5-sigma confidence. So they avoid using this language, but I think that is foolish because this language makes it situation much clearer. And using this language might have made the outputs of COP1 more obviously wrong. All the climate scientists have managed to do is delay people's understanding, give false hope and feed deniers confusing material. We need to rapidly reduce greenhouse gases to 1950 levels to avoid +2C. The closer we get to +2C with greenhouse gas concentrations greater than 1950 levels the more likely we are to cross +2C.
The ultimate equilibrium temperature for today's concentrations is +3.5C to +5.0C and we are heading there at the rate of +0.02C a year while still upping the levels every year.
It is hard to warm a planet. This paper makes it very clear that temperature is a lagging indicator: https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/i... [fau.edu]
The atmosphere weighs just 1/5 as much as just the ice on Antarctica. The planet's ice, its oceans, even the first 30m or so of the ground all have to heated by this small mass of atmosphere (and in the case of the ice, melt) as the atmosphere heats up before a new equilibrium associated with our adjusted greenhouse gas concentrations is reached. People need to understand that the planets temperature is playing catch up to things we did decades ago and what the implications of that are.
Retirement prospects (Score:3)
Looks like by the time I retire, the UK is going to be a nice, warm, dry country. Saves me moving to Spain.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're planning on moving to Spain for a dry climate, stay away from the plain [youtube.com].
Yeah, we're pretty much screwed. It's up ... (Score:2)
... to us how hard. Given that nobody seems to care all that much about current rates of global warming my hope is dwindling.
The last time earths atmospheric CO2 levels were this high was 30 million years ago with a sea level roughly 30 meters higher than today. Not saying that CO2 is the only factor for that difference, but it ain't nothing either. And since there's also a 6th extinction of species going on in the last 200 years that is _entirely_ driven by humans I'm not even sure climate change is the on
2 C? (Score:2)
The goal was 1.5 C.
The industry needs to stop moving the goal post. And they need to be pressured to stop by politics. Only measures like a CO2 tax will help. It needs to hurt financially.
See also the climate dividend to avoid hurting normal people.
The idea in short: Products get more expensive when they are produced more CO2 intensive. People get payed the difference by government and can decide if they either keep doing what they do (with +/- 0) or buy less CO2 intensive products to keep the money. That c
People need to quit worrying about the children (Score:2)
There's gonna be plenty of children in the future so stop worrying about it. Not as many as there would be without climate change and sure, they're going to be living in domes or underground but humans are definitely going to keep having children. Humans or Moorlocks.
We're not the problem anymore. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I looked out my window and did not see any dolphins. According to my research dolphins do not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I observed one day of -3F weather. Based on my research +3F does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I looked out my window and did not see any dolphins.
Give it time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Another idiot confusing weather and climate.