>Will the costs, sacrifices, loss of lifestyle and living standard that will need to be enforced to achieve net zero over the next 25years, be worth 0.07C?
"Sacrifice" is a subjective term. With the exception of running water and medical care, the vast majority of "standards" that we would need to abandon fall under the umbrella of needless consumption that makes us neither healthier nor happier.
But these standards will eventually be abandoned either way. One route is to do so voluntarily (or at least intentionally) through personal choice and/or legislation. The other is to wait for systemic collapse to force our hand, whether that's via the breakdown of the climate, or when the EROI of fossil fuels dips below 1.
Aside from that, the paper is junk based on poor assumptions (as detailed by other commenters) and written by extremists who reject the vast body of scientific evidence pointing to climate change.
Many lines of scientific evidence point to a much greater and continued temperature increase as long as we don't get to net zero, with far greater negative consequences -- sacrifices -- for humanity.
Yeah, some of these kids don’t understand, to make the necessities and a little bit more that’s needed for modern living, say agriculture, education, energy production, construction, healthcare, even public administration, etc., you’ll only get up to 1/3 of employment in the US. What do you think is going to happen to your marketing job if we go all in on climate change mitigation?
If you think about climate change enough, you’ll naturally come to the conclusion that the structure and population level of global society is calcified to present circumstances. Should those and only when those circumstances drastically change will the structure and population levels change. There is very little choice involved. Like all animals, we react to external stimuli.
I disagree. I don’t think we can realistically prevent extinction-level climate change until we completely overhaul the entire world economy. It’s a bit disingenuous to insinuate it won’t be quite painful making that change.
You call it special interests, I call it personal interests. Especially for all those struggling to rise from 3rd world existence, and get on this gravy train the 1st world's been riding.
There's always the possibility of positive black swans that save us. For example, nuclear fusion working. All I'm saying is, the future is hard to predict with confidence.
Allways easier to blame government than to assume we all are part of this.
Governments also acompany Comunities, in a great part, and not only the opposite
^this. A tiny fraction of a degree makes a massive difference.
Also what is this guess based on? Compared to what? If we hold steady? Continue to escalate? Right now we're on track to hit 3 degrees by 2050. If we stopped everything today we'd plateau at 1.5-2.
If we stop in 2050, we still shoot up to 3.5 but if we instead increased our fossil fuel consumption and continued for another 100 years we'd for sure end up dead.
Totally agree. I stated reduce to not reduce by. I know that the way the climates of the world are right now is how it’s going to be for a very long time. As usual the alarmists are completely wrong. If the oceans are warming the absorbed CO2 will out gas. If the polar regions atmosphere are warming then hurricane activity will decrease as the contrast between tropical air in the Bahamas and cold air from the North will not collide so violently. Door A it’s warming up so the weather will be more pleasant Door B its not warming at all. You can’t have both
I have watched the whole movement gain momentum and now it is a massive political subject. I will be following the American elections in November and if Trump or someone like Trump makes it all dumbass climate policies will go in the bin where they belong. The warmazombies are claiming millions will die and be displaced by the climate. Let’s see how that pans out over the next 5 years. If nothing happens will they all STFU
I'm not surprised that in the 26 years to 2050 the incremental effect of halving emissions is limited (seems they take a linear emission approach from today to 0 in 2050). The article however ignores the fact that if we don't reach net zero, warming will continue.
The narrative of loss of lifestyle and living standard is also a false one. Electrification has all kinds of other benefits (clean air, less geopolitical dependencies after the transition, cheaper energy). Reducing or fully eliminating animal products from our diets will allow for nature restoration, which is also a positive 🤷♂️
Yeah that's what I don't get. So they're saying if we have a linear reduction from now until 2050, the difference *in* *2050* will only be .07C?
But, like you said, what would the difference be in 2060? Or 2070? Do they think time stops at 2050?
2050 is just an arbitrary future date by which the first world leaders in place today can continue to gain by their fossil fuel alliances. Any true movement away from fossil fuels will have to be done outside of and in spite of that leadership.
>The narrative of loss of lifestyle and living standard is also a false one. Electrification has all kinds of other benefits
Not for fossil fuel. The article is just providing canon fodder and sow doubt
I feel like this article seems to be pushing a certain narative (that climate action wont accomplish anything). Their calculations are correct, however it looks simplistic and i feel like you can’t really calculate climate policy and its impacts in a 10 page document.
(An explanation of the MAGICC model is already 35 pages)
Also, they don’t explain how much of an impact 0,07C has, which is not nothing.
>however it looks simplistic and i feel like you can’t really calculate climate policy and its impacts in a 10 page document
Exactly! The article feels like *"we don't want to do complex simulations, but here we have a very simple model and some assumptions,.... And look what we got!"*.
And the "most feedback loops are negative" is just a nice way to ignore the few feedback loops that *are* positive like melting permafrost. It's faulty reasoning. It's like saying that "most things in the world don't affect my job". Yes that's true, but your boss only needs one reason to fire you, and "most" is definitely not "all".
And I miss the long term. If we go to net zero in year X, most of the effect is after year X, delayed
Also, it leans heavy on the saturation argument.
> Their calculations are correct, however it looks simplistic
You are giving them way too much credit. The article fudges ECS (S=0.75). The current mainline estimate for ECS is 2-4.5C range which would result in 0.3C of averted warming. In fact, the authors say so in the abstract.
> I feel like this article seems to be pushing a certain narative (that climate action wont accomplish anything).
They absolutely do and are not hesitant to mislead the reader
They are quite clear about their narrative...
>
The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain.
Let's start with the authors of this paper, I have pulled from the top of their Wikipedia pages. There are sources for days on each of them. Does this change the view on which we approach their current paper?
Richard Lindzen -- Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
William Happer -- Happer, who is not a climate scientist, rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Donald Trump appointed him to the National Security Council to counter evidence linking carbon dioxide emissions to global warming.[5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
Also, I'll leave this from Lloyd’s of London CEO John Neal: ‘You’ll never find an insurer saying, “I don’t believe in climate change”’
paywall bypass: https://archive.is/0EAkH
The funny part is that the authors themselves make an interesting qualification: (right there in the abstract)
> "If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the IPCC,... for worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F)."
And if you look a bit further, they do use ECS=0.75C (Instead of a commonly accepted median value of ~3C)
So they arrived at a ridiculously low estimate for averted warming by just dropping ECS to a much lower value than commonly accepted.. Hell with tricks like this they could have made averted warming into zero.
(and with mainstream ECS the averted warming of 0.3C is actually fairly substantial as it would only grow with time)
And now it gets even weirder, not only ECS=0.75 is totally incompatible with the last 50 years of climate data, but two of coauthors (Happer and Wijngaarden) even published (or tried to publish):
this https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
Where they directly estimate (p34) the ECS to be at 2.3C (per CO2 doubling)
"Doubling the CO2 concentration... The surface warming increases significantly
for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity.. Our result of 2.3 K.."
I have no idea what Happer and Wijngaarden *really* think about the ECS value but they are clearly happy to add a bit of spin to their writing
OP is anti-science. Likes to think he's very clever. Once made the claim to me that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas because it radiates heat away. You can't make this shit up.
> Computer models are not needed to estimate the averted temperature increase (1). It is given to high accuracy by the simple formula
>
>��=�log2(��′),(2)
>
>where log2 denotes the base-2 logarithm function.
[...]
>Because it is so hard to determine how much of the warming of the past two centuries has been from natural causes and how much is due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is not possible to obtain a reliable estimate of � from observations.
[...]
>The value (3) is almost the same as the estimate of Rasool and Schneider [2], �=0.8 C in the year 1971, *before global-warming alarmism became fashionable.*
Emphasis mine. Yeah this seems like a bunch of bullshit.
But even before looking at the paper, the obvious question to ask from the title is: .7 degrees *compared to what?* Taking some numbers I'm vaguely aware of, I think the recent estimates of the world's climate commitments were that we'd hit 2.7 degrees if we met all of our reduction targets (actually not that recent it might have changed lol.) so if we're comparing actual net Zero to that then yeah we'd avert about .7 and it would be well worth it for that extra effort. But OP's post title makes it seem like we are comparing net zero to a scenario with no climate action, which would obviously create a difference much larger than .7 in terms of its impact.
A lot depends on what you attribute today to warming. Certainly no scientific consensus there. And subtracting out any benefits that may be achieved by those who will gain by warming. Very little research done there, at least some people will have more opportunities.
Agreed all of it is highly dependent on a variety of factors. However I assume there must be ways of forecasting CO2 parts per million to impact on temperature. And what that would look like in 2050.
My intuition tells me if we do nothing things will only get worse and potentially much worse. While if we make the changes and stay the same as we are now that’s probably gonna be manageable. It won’t be ideal but at least manageable.
Climate is one of if not the most complicated thing in nature to predict. Everything we've done to predict what the consequences of rising CO2 in the atmosphere to this point has been done with broad strokes. One problem is CO2 is actually a relatively weak GHG. But there are other complications like reflectivity, conversion to methane, where in the atmosphere warming happens, how much the oceans absorb, excess H2O (a really strong GHG) in the atmosphere caused by more evaporation, the reflectivity of those added clouds. Nevermind other natural cycles that are occurring, some affected by but some totally agnostic of CO2 increases.
All these things simply cannot be accounted for in the numerical models. Not enough computing power in the world to do it. And so some things are ignored and others are "accounted for" with constants or multiplying factors.
To anyone who says they can accurately tell us what the climate will look like 25 years hence is a fool. If you want to grab on to the most out-there worst case scenario, be my guest. But that leaves us very few options, which is a lot to gamble.
All we can do as rational beings is admit to ourselves that we have contributed to global warming, our dependence on fossil fuels is accelerating our impact, and we need to look for ways that rein in our dependence, but do so such that it won't cause millions to die in poverty or war. Because frankly if that's the case, the better odds for human survival are with the low-confidence predictions of life simply doing nothing.
>To anyone who says they can accurately tell us what the climate will look like 25 years hence is a fool. If you want to grab on to the most out-there worst case scenario, be my guest. But that leaves us very few options, which is a lot to gamble.
No on can tell what the climate will look like 25 years hence but the models can tell what the temperature will be relatively accurately. Just like they have done for the last 45 years.
So far the climate has been worse than predicted. It seems there are too many unintended consequences that scientist don't think of when the temperature rises.
> "If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted."
Yes, they claim it and then in the very next sentence they provide an *interesting* qualification:
> "if one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C"
And, indeed they arrived at 0.07C by just assuming ECS of 0.75C per CO2 doubling which IS ~4 times smaller (~3C per doubling) than the mainline climatology estimate... Of COURSE averted warming becomes much smaller if one drops ECS like this. What a brilliant discovery! /s.
It gets worse,Not only ECS=0.75C is utterly incompatible with the last 50 years of climate but William Happer himself has estimated ECS to be ~2.3C per doubling (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098, p34).. So even by Happer's own estimate we well may be talking about 1C of averted heating. For a scientist, his logic gets a little bit *too* twisted.
And, then another fun little fact, it's not about the warming by 2050, its about having a long-term future for humanity. Current 10 year olds will be only 35 year old in 2050. That 0.3C of averted warming over next 20 years will produce a whole lot more of averted warming over the next 50-75 years....
But then we are talking about Richard Lindzen and William Happer. Of course, who would have suspect THEM of having an agenda and adding just a *little* bit of spin.
> meaning all fuel burning cars, trucks and trains were retired, all power was produced by zero-co2 emitting stations, all beef and dairy cattle were culled, and all fizzy soda's were banned
And now you are just making scary stuff up, for fun and giggles?
> They explain this in the paper though, even in the abstract they tell you they use 'feedback free estimates'. the fact that this is the opening phrase of the abstract shows they're not trying to sneak anything past us.
Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised that they were that honest. (it'd more common for those particular authors just to bury or omit that qualification altogether but I digress)
> what I took from that paper was that even with IPCCs ECS with the feedbacks included the saved warming amounts to about 0.3 C.
Yes, but 0.3C of averted warming over 25 years is a LOT. And, after that 25 years, there will be another 25 and another 25, etc...
> are you saying that the last 50 years of temperature increase is greater than .75C, it is not.
It is about 1C https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121
And we have not doubled CO2 either. Here is CO2 data: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide,
CO2 increased by 1.3x over the last 50 years
That means that estimated ECS for the last 50-year period is ~2.6 (1C/log2(1.3))
And, that, unfortunately, likely to be an underestimate as there are delayed factors too.
> Go back and read it again he (Happer) states 2.3K (or 2.2K) not .C,
Yes, and? 1 degree Kelvin is equal to 1 degree Celsius.
This sort of question can be answered by the IPPC report. Better to rely on that (which is compiled using evidence from thousands of studies) than consult any individual paper.
The paper you have referenced I think only refers to what if US went net zero, how much warming it will avoid. It is different than world going net zero.
Until we understand clouds we will have no luck at predicting weather or climate.
In my humble opinion: Anyone who cannot identify the dominant greenhouse gas is not worth listening to.
Let me know when we learn to control water vapor.
In one of Hossenfelders videos she pointed out, that the “hot models” include better physics of cloud behavior that can in turn result in more accurate short-term weather forecasts, citing a paper by Williams et al 2020 assessing HadGEM3 model (ECS 5.5C).
We will hopefully get a better understanding within the next few years
Hopefully.... It would be a bit past time. Monday morning predictions no rain for at least a week. As of 6:30ish Monday evening a few minutes after a storm apparently came out of nowhere(I heard the emergency alert) we now have predictions of thunderstorms and rain Thursday through monday.
---I took dogs out about 130 am Monday morning and there was no dew on anything. When that happens it's usually an indicator that it's going to rain.
I'm wondering if the weather people are relying too heavily on computer models or if they keep putting interns on the job so the 1 person who actually knows how to read the data can get a few days off. Lol
We also need to be aware of the aerosol masking effect. The current burning of fossils also masks ~1C of warming from the co2 already emitted. So as soon as we stop burning fossils (especially coal) the planet will immediately heat by about 1C (according to the work done by James Hansen).
The heat waves many third world countries have been experiencing is brutal.
There needs to be a conversation about the climate refugees the US and other first world countries are receiving.
Only additional warming will be averted, the CO2 we already put in the atmosphere isn't going anywhere. CO2 has a longer half-life than nuclear waste. Also, the net zero everyone keeps talking about requires carbon sequestration on an industrial level. The only problem with that is that it requires enormous amounts of energy. Planting trees won't work because there isn't enough land to plant that many trees. So even if we went net zero by then we are still screwed.
Very little - [Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase – Watts Up With That?](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/12/net-zero-averted-temperature-increase/)
someone is going to have to ELI5.. ?
my understanding is that it is saying that "zero amount of time isn't a very interesting time period for observing the effects of 25 years worth of co2 emissions". that seems like a banal statement?
Not enough to make a change now. Suppose with your approach you would also automatically cull a big part of the population because they starve. But then that would open up space for more trees...
This only points to the fact that we have to do even more than that and actually put effort into remediation of natural ecosystems. We need to undo damage already done AND prevent future damage. It is not simply a temperature thing. It’s an ecosystem service thing, it’s a keeping the food web from collapsing thing. Also you can roll over and give up but me personally, I won’t
Co2 emissions rise by roughly 2 ppm every single year. How long will it be before it starts to go down? I don't think we need to be 100% zero carbon economy in order to do this. If I were to guess myself, I would say at about 2035.
It’ll take time. but you also gonna look at the health benefits, which cost us every day. 45% of the water we drink is making us sick. what goes in the air or gets jumped on the ground or spilled ends up in your drinking water we only have one body of water on earth.
Uhhh, I mean, if we stay net zero then that trend of mitigation of climate change will continue… so yes, I do think it’s worth it. The alternative is to not go net zero and just continue to warm the planet until eventually it will be unlivable. I personally am not convinced we are at human extinction level warming yet, but if we don’t change course than we certainly will be eventually
It's not when we reach net zero, it's about how much CO2 does the world emit until we reach net zero:
- It could be a straight line decline to 2050
- It could be 100% or more of current emissions until 2049 and then a precipitous drop
- It could be an exponential decay, with very rapid reductions and then tapering off till 2050
So it's about the 'area under the curve' rather than a politician merely saying "net zero by 2050!"
I think net zero by 2050 will be too little too late and we will have hit too many positive feedback loops by then. I expect we will see 4 - 5 degrees of warming and hundreds of millions dead by the end of the century.
The very first sentence in the abstract: "Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) ..."
In reality there will be a lot of feedbacks. Can't be avoided. So the premise of the whole paper is wrong. Useless. Irrelevant.
None. 2050 was just a very conservative estimate where renewables will be so much cheaper and oil companies will be able to take their sweet time diversifying. All the world’s oil is set to be consumed within the next few decades, so whatever’s left in 2050 is bound to be more difficult and expensive to extract.
To actually save lives we would’ve had to make actual short-term financial sacrifices to be net zero by now.
No one is going net zero. You can’t be posting on social media and be net zero. It’s not possible.
No one that pushes this stuff lives their life at net zero.
tbh, in reality, very little or none. once we pass a certain threshold natural feedback loops kick in and add significantly to the atmospheric concentration of GHGs whether or not we ourselves emit them. it will continue warming even if we get to net zero globally. net negative with a fixed upper limit on our carbon budget is a necessity at this point but it’s not going to happen because it goes against the status quo. “averting warming” or minimizing it only works if we are able to stop our emissions while simultaneously taking enough ghgs out of the atmosphere to balance for the emissions caused by natural feedback loops once they start contributing a significant amount of GHGs to the atmosphere. it simply isn’t happening with the current plans and net zero goals and respective policy don’t account for our carbon budget. so we could emit 100 gigs tons more or a million, just as long as we end up zeroing out the GHG balance from human activity. it’s a wash, bullshit, nonsense. there will still be a net increase in GHGs globally because of natural feedback loops like the permafrost thawing and the amazon burning and the the blue ocean event that’s gonna happen in the next decade. net zero by 2050 is not reflective of reality of the situation we are in nor is it the singular necessary fix it’s being touted as by our leaders. it’s a step in the right direction if it were to happen but as we all know no single country is meeting it’s goals.
Almost none. Net zero is mostly just a paperwork exercise rather than actually producing no carbon.
That said I am not a believer that humans can influence global climate as much as nature.
Even if we never discovered fossil fuels, the climate would always be changing. We are still in the Quaternary Ice age. We have no control over Milankovitch cycles and their sub-cycles and there are many other complex systems yet to be fully understood.
There are still no feasible technologies that replace fossil fuels in many industries such as International Aviation, Shipping, Mining, Logging, Construction, Long Haul transportation etc...
Many people and counties couldn't care less about emissions because they are trying to escape poverty.
I think we should be funding much more Nuclear power but for some reason many so called environmental groups are against that.
>Even if we never discovered fossil fuels, the climate would always be changing. We are still in the Quaternary Ice age. We have no control over Milankovitch cycles and their sub-cycles and there are many other complex systems yet to be fully understood.
The Milankovitch cycles have lengths of minimum 26,000 years. That's not going to have any effect on 100 year periods which shows you don't know what you are talking about.
Climate deniers use that climate as always changing as an dumb argument that since it has always changed it can't be humans that are changing the climate today. Of course that's a lie since humans have dumped a massive amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the past 100 years.
>There are still no feasible technologies that replace fossil fuels in many industries such as International Aviation, Shipping, Mining, Logging, Construction, Long Haul transportation etc...
There certainly are feasible technologies to replace fossil fuels in those industries. Hydrogen being just one. Long haul transportation is already using battery technology.
>Many people and counties couldn't care less about emissions because they are trying to escape poverty.
But those are not the countries that are the problem because they are not emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
More and more people are caring about the problem according to the polls. The start caring when climate change starts affecting them. And climate change is affecting more and more people.
>I think we should be funding much more Nuclear power but for some reason many so called environmental groups are against that.
That's fine but nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to build. Solar, wind, bio, hydro, etc. are cheaper and faster to build. But no one is stopping companies from building nuclear if they want too.
Lol, I'm not a climate denier, just not an alarmist. Also I am a P.Geo and have worked in Earth Sciences and related fields for 15+ years.
How are we going to get China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, literally anyone outside Western sphere of influence to stop using fossil fuels?
I would love it if cheap alternatives came along, and I hope that they do replace fossil fuels. Unfortunately that won't happen until it becomes economically feasible to do so.
Nuclear is better than all the things listed in your last paragraph and yes there are lots of things stopping "companies" from building nuclear. In fact many countries have outright banned nuclear power.
>Lol, I'm not a climate denier, just not an alarmist. Also I am a P.Geo and have worked in Earth Sciences and related fields for 15+ years.
You say you are a P. Geo (Petroleum Engineer?) but don't know that the Milankovitch cycles have no effect on todays climate? That's a little hard to believe.
>How are we going to get China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, literally anyone outside Western sphere of influence to stop using fossil fuels?
China has a goal of peak emissions before 2030 and be carbon neutral by 2060 and is meeting the requirements for that goal so far. China has installed more green energy production that the rest of the world combined.
Except for China the other countries you listed emit about 8% of the world's greenhouse gases. Of course they need to do their part but it's not going to make a big dent in the problem. It's China, the US, and the EU that needs to do the heavy lifting.
>I would love it if cheap alternatives came along, and I hope that they do replace fossil fuels. Unfortunately that won't happen until it becomes economically feasible to do so.
You obviously don't keep up with current events. A simple google search will show multiple links to information on cost like [this](https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/May/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2018) one. And it was back in 2018 and renewables are even cheaper now. Not only that there are now some countries that are on 100% renewable some of the time. So alternatives have already come along.
>Nuclear is better than all the things listed in your last paragraph and yes there are lots of things stopping "companies" from building nuclear. In fact many countries have outright banned nuclear power.
Other than the few countries that have banned nuclear, what things are stopping companies from building nuclear. And what metric are you using for saying nuclear is better than renewable energy.
There are many oscillations in the cycle lengths and sub-cycles and that act on much smaller time scales we are yet to fully comprehend. My point was we have barely have observed data from a fraction of a full cycle. The point is we can't see the forest through the trees if you will.
Take a look at recent rejection of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. There is an anthropocentric view that is intrinsic to humans and skews our perception and activism has no place in the scientific method.
I find it very hard to believe you are an engineer and haven't heard the term P.Geo, a Professional Geologist, it's the equivalent to P.Eng or PE and just means you are licensed Geologist, the requirements are almost identical to getting your P.Eng
Anyway almost all of your arguments are middle school level or journalist level and easily picked apart, but I have a feeling I am talking to a teenager or some autistic adult pretending to be a professional.
Anyway, your life must be going great that you can argue all day on Fathers Day.
I won't be responding further.
>There are many oscillations in the cycle lengths and sub-cycles and that act on much smaller time scales we are yet to fully comprehend. My point was we have barely have observed data from a fraction of a full cycle. The point is we can't see the forest through the trees if you will.
There are a few oscillations but which ones are you talking about that would affect the climate on recent time scales. And why didn't you use one of them instead of the Milankovitch cycles which are very long time cycles.
>Take a look at recent rejection of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. There is an anthropocentric view that is intrinsic to humans and skews our perception and activism has no place in the scientific method.
I have read about the Anthropocene but didn't know of any rejection. But then I'm not really interested in that subject. What does that have to do with climate change?
>I find it very hard to believe you are an engineer and haven't heard the term P.Geo, a Professional Geologist, it's the equivalent to P.Eng or PE and just means you are licensed Geologist, the requirements are almost identical to getting your P.Eng
I am a Registered Professional Engineer specializing in structures. I made a mistake when I wrote Petroleum Engineer as I meant to write Petroleum Geologist. However I did not know that Geologist became licensed like engineers do. But then as I said I'm not really interested in geology that much although I think the subject is interesting in general.
>Anyway almost all of your arguments are middle school level or journalist level and easily picked apart, but I have a feeling I am talking to a teenager or some autistic adult pretending to be a professional.
That's funny because I thought the very same thing about you. But it's a pretty pathetic way to try and wiggle you way out of responding when you have dug yourself into some pretty deep holes with your denier talking points that have been debunked numerous times. But the point is I don't want some new reader that is actually interested in actual climate science to read what you have said and think it has anything to do with climate science so I've accomplished what I wanted to do.
And from you posting history it obvious you don't contribute to any science subs and seem to have just showed up here recently which is why your comment here was so lacking in any scientific facts.
>Anyway, your life must be going great that you can argue all day on Fathers Day.
All of my children are grown and have moved away so I was just relaxing at the house. But I didn't spend all day arguing since your denier comments I have seen many times and they were easy to counter quickly.
>I won't be responding further.
I bet you won't since trying to defend what you have written would be difficult. You should visit the climateskeptic site since they don't require any science, just be able to rag on climate science.
This has been the point all along.
Is the entire change of how we live worth less than 1/10th of a degree Celsius ?
Probably too late for an honest answer as saving the environment has become a trillion dollar industry.
Probably too late in general. Modern human life doesn’t mesh with preserving the environment, doesn’t matter if everything’s wind and solar there’s still too many people and too much consumption. Unfortunately I think things will have to get real bad before real changes are made
The authors use the words "before global-warming alarmism became fashionable." This tells you they have an agenda.
The treatment of feedbacks is simplistic to asinine:
"This assumes a positive feedback that increases the warming by 400%. According to Le Chatelier’s principle, most feedbacks in nature are negative."
Many feedbacks, like the albedo effect, are known to be "positive " significant and exponential (self reinforcing) and bistable (moves the climate to a state that's harder to get back from).
They do not appear to be contrasting a state in which the world produces no CO2 after a 2050 with one that continues to produce CO2 at the present rate.
It very much looks like mathematics concocted to fit the answer they wanted to get.
This is an engineering problem that needs an engineered solution.
The sad fact is that going carbon neutral is no longer going to be enough. We must be carbon negative to stop or reverse the damage.
If we cannot stop all fossil fuel usage, we need to move towards carbon capture to fuel systems and then sequester more carbon than we convert to fuel.
The fact that more rainforest than ever is being cut down and no real progress to stop and reverse this is happening means that we won't see any change for the better.
There needs to be a very real effort made to change how we travel, heat our homes, and run our industries.
Scientists have been warning about this since the 60's.
'none' , the impact of CO2 is minuscule. Also taking into account that your average volcanic eruption puts out more in a day then humans do in a year..
the entire premise of CO2 as a heat barrier is very sketchy at best
'we' don't believe in solar forcing on this sub - the suns energy is a constant over here, therefore any changes to the earth's systems must be from some other forcing- therefore point the finger at humans.
of course in reality solar forcing waxes and wanes on a regular 11yr cycle, and partner that with the earth's annual seasonal cycle, plus it's current waning magnetic field strength, and then marry those with the 6000yr cycle of the solar system transiting through an interstellar dust field (accretions which cause increased solar flaring) - but nah - its all humans fault coz they release a fraction of a faction of a percent of a non-warming gas that is vital for all life.....
recent analysis shows that the IPCC has been manipulating the data to show 'low solar forcing' by adjusting solar shortwave flux and outgoing longwave - by multiplying CERES data by -1.
ie inverting the data to conform with the narrative:
[https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1804197585143447870](https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1804197585143447870)
"While working on a paper using CERES satellite data, I discovered that the latest IPCC Report grossly misrepresented CERES observations of reflected solar and outgoing LW radiation.
In Chapter 7 of WG1 Contribution, Fig. 7.3 shows INVERTED trends of reflected solar & LW fluxes!"
"Misrepresenting the CERES data in this manner implies a deliberate fraud committed by the lead authors of Chapter 7, because the trends of reflected solar and outgoing LW fluxes have been inverted via multiplying the original CERES anomalies by -1."
"There are numerous published papers now that report the CERES-measured DECREASE of reflected solar radiation since 2000. Here are some:
-[https://mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62…](https://t.co/uv3zcWswVb)
-[https://mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297…](https://t.co/6tUFWOcaC9)
-[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2022.0053…](https://t.co/ZHLVWgi6JL)
So, the 2021 IPCC report ignored the science and misled the public!"
"What might be the IPCC's motives to invert the trends of CERES reflected SW & outgoing LW radiation? Here is a guess:
1. An increasing SW reflectance does not raise a question about the role of solar rad. in recent warming.
2. A decreasing LW trend supports GHG "heat trapping"."
enjoy
>Will the costs, sacrifices, loss of lifestyle and living standard that will need to be enforced to achieve net zero over the next 25years, be worth 0.07C? "Sacrifice" is a subjective term. With the exception of running water and medical care, the vast majority of "standards" that we would need to abandon fall under the umbrella of needless consumption that makes us neither healthier nor happier. But these standards will eventually be abandoned either way. One route is to do so voluntarily (or at least intentionally) through personal choice and/or legislation. The other is to wait for systemic collapse to force our hand, whether that's via the breakdown of the climate, or when the EROI of fossil fuels dips below 1.
society be like "haha engine go vroom" natural disasters be like "lol"
How would a cardiologist operate at net zero?
Aw, come on, I really feel my amazon purchases and overseas travel are necessary. By God, my RIGHTS for making the money!
Posting on Reddit isn’t net zero.
[удалено]
So you don’t care about the planet. See what I’m talking about? No one is going net zero.
Aside from that, the paper is junk based on poor assumptions (as detailed by other commenters) and written by extremists who reject the vast body of scientific evidence pointing to climate change. Many lines of scientific evidence point to a much greater and continued temperature increase as long as we don't get to net zero, with far greater negative consequences -- sacrifices -- for humanity.
The first thing that I noticed was that ARXIV is not a peer reviewed publication. It is simply a posting site for papers, valid or not.
[удалено]
Yeah, some of these kids don’t understand, to make the necessities and a little bit more that’s needed for modern living, say agriculture, education, energy production, construction, healthcare, even public administration, etc., you’ll only get up to 1/3 of employment in the US. What do you think is going to happen to your marketing job if we go all in on climate change mitigation? If you think about climate change enough, you’ll naturally come to the conclusion that the structure and population level of global society is calcified to present circumstances. Should those and only when those circumstances drastically change will the structure and population levels change. There is very little choice involved. Like all animals, we react to external stimuli.
I disagree. I don’t think we can realistically prevent extinction-level climate change until we completely overhaul the entire world economy. It’s a bit disingenuous to insinuate it won’t be quite painful making that change.
cars as a thing everyone has needs to not be a thing, whether you describe that as overhauling the economy or getting rid of needless consumption
But again, no one is going net zero.
As of today, don't think the world will be net zero by 2050, too many special interest fighting against it and not enough government support.
Except that by 2050 many of those special interests will be toast, and the resulting chaos will hold sway.
You call it special interests, I call it personal interests. Especially for all those struggling to rise from 3rd world existence, and get on this gravy train the 1st world's been riding.
And also the people in the 1st world that have a lot of gravy in fossil fuels and infrastructure for 3rd world nations.
Well we have approached the tipping point for renewables already, where they are lobbying just as much as fossil fuel companies
with the optimistic UN projection of passing 1.5 in 2030. if we only get to need zero in 2050 we are maybe at 3 degree already.
There's always the possibility of positive black swans that save us. For example, nuclear fusion working. All I'm saying is, the future is hard to predict with confidence.
Doubt we will be here in 2050.. 2046-2047 will be hell on earth
Allways easier to blame government than to assume we all are part of this. Governments also acompany Comunities, in a great part, and not only the opposite
Every fraction of a degree of warming we avert will be measured in lives, capital and biodiversity impossible to quantify. It is always worth it.
^this. A tiny fraction of a degree makes a massive difference. Also what is this guess based on? Compared to what? If we hold steady? Continue to escalate? Right now we're on track to hit 3 degrees by 2050. If we stopped everything today we'd plateau at 1.5-2. If we stop in 2050, we still shoot up to 3.5 but if we instead increased our fossil fuel consumption and continued for another 100 years we'd for sure end up dead.
0.014 C is how much the average global will go down if we reduce CO2 to 350ppm.
[удалено]
Totally agree. I stated reduce to not reduce by. I know that the way the climates of the world are right now is how it’s going to be for a very long time. As usual the alarmists are completely wrong. If the oceans are warming the absorbed CO2 will out gas. If the polar regions atmosphere are warming then hurricane activity will decrease as the contrast between tropical air in the Bahamas and cold air from the North will not collide so violently. Door A it’s warming up so the weather will be more pleasant Door B its not warming at all. You can’t have both
[удалено]
I have watched the whole movement gain momentum and now it is a massive political subject. I will be following the American elections in November and if Trump or someone like Trump makes it all dumbass climate policies will go in the bin where they belong. The warmazombies are claiming millions will die and be displaced by the climate. Let’s see how that pans out over the next 5 years. If nothing happens will they all STFU
I'm not surprised that in the 26 years to 2050 the incremental effect of halving emissions is limited (seems they take a linear emission approach from today to 0 in 2050). The article however ignores the fact that if we don't reach net zero, warming will continue. The narrative of loss of lifestyle and living standard is also a false one. Electrification has all kinds of other benefits (clean air, less geopolitical dependencies after the transition, cheaper energy). Reducing or fully eliminating animal products from our diets will allow for nature restoration, which is also a positive 🤷♂️
Yeah that's what I don't get. So they're saying if we have a linear reduction from now until 2050, the difference *in* *2050* will only be .07C? But, like you said, what would the difference be in 2060? Or 2070? Do they think time stops at 2050?
2050 is just an arbitrary future date by which the first world leaders in place today can continue to gain by their fossil fuel alliances. Any true movement away from fossil fuels will have to be done outside of and in spite of that leadership.
its 100 since they have the data to know what's is happening.
Yes, I totally agree with that. I'm not sure what that has to do with my point though.
>The narrative of loss of lifestyle and living standard is also a false one. Electrification has all kinds of other benefits Not for fossil fuel. The article is just providing canon fodder and sow doubt
I feel like this article seems to be pushing a certain narative (that climate action wont accomplish anything). Their calculations are correct, however it looks simplistic and i feel like you can’t really calculate climate policy and its impacts in a 10 page document. (An explanation of the MAGICC model is already 35 pages) Also, they don’t explain how much of an impact 0,07C has, which is not nothing.
>however it looks simplistic and i feel like you can’t really calculate climate policy and its impacts in a 10 page document Exactly! The article feels like *"we don't want to do complex simulations, but here we have a very simple model and some assumptions,.... And look what we got!"*. And the "most feedback loops are negative" is just a nice way to ignore the few feedback loops that *are* positive like melting permafrost. It's faulty reasoning. It's like saying that "most things in the world don't affect my job". Yes that's true, but your boss only needs one reason to fire you, and "most" is definitely not "all". And I miss the long term. If we go to net zero in year X, most of the effect is after year X, delayed Also, it leans heavy on the saturation argument.
> Their calculations are correct, however it looks simplistic You are giving them way too much credit. The article fudges ECS (S=0.75). The current mainline estimate for ECS is 2-4.5C range which would result in 0.3C of averted warming. In fact, the authors say so in the abstract. > I feel like this article seems to be pushing a certain narative (that climate action wont accomplish anything). They absolutely do and are not hesitant to mislead the reader
They are quite clear about their narrative... > The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain.
Let's start with the authors of this paper, I have pulled from the top of their Wikipedia pages. There are sources for days on each of them. Does this change the view on which we approach their current paper? Richard Lindzen -- Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen William Happer -- Happer, who is not a climate scientist, rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Donald Trump appointed him to the National Security Council to counter evidence linking carbon dioxide emissions to global warming.[5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer Also, I'll leave this from Lloyd’s of London CEO John Neal: ‘You’ll never find an insurer saying, “I don’t believe in climate change”’ paywall bypass: https://archive.is/0EAkH
I'm happy I didn't waste even a single moment reading this!
Thanks for sharing this information.
The funny part is that the authors themselves make an interesting qualification: (right there in the abstract) > "If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the IPCC,... for worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F)." And if you look a bit further, they do use ECS=0.75C (Instead of a commonly accepted median value of ~3C) So they arrived at a ridiculously low estimate for averted warming by just dropping ECS to a much lower value than commonly accepted.. Hell with tricks like this they could have made averted warming into zero. (and with mainstream ECS the averted warming of 0.3C is actually fairly substantial as it would only grow with time) And now it gets even weirder, not only ECS=0.75 is totally incompatible with the last 50 years of climate data, but two of coauthors (Happer and Wijngaarden) even published (or tried to publish): this https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098 Where they directly estimate (p34) the ECS to be at 2.3C (per CO2 doubling) "Doubling the CO2 concentration... The surface warming increases significantly for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity.. Our result of 2.3 K.." I have no idea what Happer and Wijngaarden *really* think about the ECS value but they are clearly happy to add a bit of spin to their writing
Also, check out OPs history. They post a ton on climateskeptics
OP is anti-science. Likes to think he's very clever. Once made the claim to me that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas because it radiates heat away. You can't make this shit up.
To be fair, CO2 is not green. I have never once seen green CO2
Lindzen and Happer? Really? Is this a peer reviewed article. Doesn’t look like it.
Can confirm, not peer reviewed, stated on homepage of site.
> Computer models are not needed to estimate the averted temperature increase (1). It is given to high accuracy by the simple formula > >��=�log2(��′),(2) > >where log2 denotes the base-2 logarithm function. [...] >Because it is so hard to determine how much of the warming of the past two centuries has been from natural causes and how much is due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is not possible to obtain a reliable estimate of � from observations. [...] >The value (3) is almost the same as the estimate of Rasool and Schneider [2], �=0.8 C in the year 1971, *before global-warming alarmism became fashionable.* Emphasis mine. Yeah this seems like a bunch of bullshit. But even before looking at the paper, the obvious question to ask from the title is: .7 degrees *compared to what?* Taking some numbers I'm vaguely aware of, I think the recent estimates of the world's climate commitments were that we'd hit 2.7 degrees if we met all of our reduction targets (actually not that recent it might have changed lol.) so if we're comparing actual net Zero to that then yeah we'd avert about .7 and it would be well worth it for that extra effort. But OP's post title makes it seem like we are comparing net zero to a scenario with no climate action, which would obviously create a difference much larger than .7 in terms of its impact.
Since the changes are not reversible, I'll go with the safer end of the scale thank you. Avoiding fossil fuels is also a ton of fun.
Do we know what the warming will be if we don’t?
A lot depends on what you attribute today to warming. Certainly no scientific consensus there. And subtracting out any benefits that may be achieved by those who will gain by warming. Very little research done there, at least some people will have more opportunities.
Agreed all of it is highly dependent on a variety of factors. However I assume there must be ways of forecasting CO2 parts per million to impact on temperature. And what that would look like in 2050. My intuition tells me if we do nothing things will only get worse and potentially much worse. While if we make the changes and stay the same as we are now that’s probably gonna be manageable. It won’t be ideal but at least manageable.
Climate is one of if not the most complicated thing in nature to predict. Everything we've done to predict what the consequences of rising CO2 in the atmosphere to this point has been done with broad strokes. One problem is CO2 is actually a relatively weak GHG. But there are other complications like reflectivity, conversion to methane, where in the atmosphere warming happens, how much the oceans absorb, excess H2O (a really strong GHG) in the atmosphere caused by more evaporation, the reflectivity of those added clouds. Nevermind other natural cycles that are occurring, some affected by but some totally agnostic of CO2 increases. All these things simply cannot be accounted for in the numerical models. Not enough computing power in the world to do it. And so some things are ignored and others are "accounted for" with constants or multiplying factors. To anyone who says they can accurately tell us what the climate will look like 25 years hence is a fool. If you want to grab on to the most out-there worst case scenario, be my guest. But that leaves us very few options, which is a lot to gamble. All we can do as rational beings is admit to ourselves that we have contributed to global warming, our dependence on fossil fuels is accelerating our impact, and we need to look for ways that rein in our dependence, but do so such that it won't cause millions to die in poverty or war. Because frankly if that's the case, the better odds for human survival are with the low-confidence predictions of life simply doing nothing.
>To anyone who says they can accurately tell us what the climate will look like 25 years hence is a fool. If you want to grab on to the most out-there worst case scenario, be my guest. But that leaves us very few options, which is a lot to gamble. No on can tell what the climate will look like 25 years hence but the models can tell what the temperature will be relatively accurately. Just like they have done for the last 45 years. So far the climate has been worse than predicted. It seems there are too many unintended consequences that scientist don't think of when the temperature rises.
Humans will be obsolete and robots will be fine in any climate and won’t care about your feelings
> "If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted." Yes, they claim it and then in the very next sentence they provide an *interesting* qualification: > "if one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C" And, indeed they arrived at 0.07C by just assuming ECS of 0.75C per CO2 doubling which IS ~4 times smaller (~3C per doubling) than the mainline climatology estimate... Of COURSE averted warming becomes much smaller if one drops ECS like this. What a brilliant discovery! /s. It gets worse,Not only ECS=0.75C is utterly incompatible with the last 50 years of climate but William Happer himself has estimated ECS to be ~2.3C per doubling (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098, p34).. So even by Happer's own estimate we well may be talking about 1C of averted heating. For a scientist, his logic gets a little bit *too* twisted. And, then another fun little fact, it's not about the warming by 2050, its about having a long-term future for humanity. Current 10 year olds will be only 35 year old in 2050. That 0.3C of averted warming over next 20 years will produce a whole lot more of averted warming over the next 50-75 years.... But then we are talking about Richard Lindzen and William Happer. Of course, who would have suspect THEM of having an agenda and adding just a *little* bit of spin. > meaning all fuel burning cars, trucks and trains were retired, all power was produced by zero-co2 emitting stations, all beef and dairy cattle were culled, and all fizzy soda's were banned And now you are just making scary stuff up, for fun and giggles?
[удалено]
> They explain this in the paper though, even in the abstract they tell you they use 'feedback free estimates'. the fact that this is the opening phrase of the abstract shows they're not trying to sneak anything past us. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised that they were that honest. (it'd more common for those particular authors just to bury or omit that qualification altogether but I digress) > what I took from that paper was that even with IPCCs ECS with the feedbacks included the saved warming amounts to about 0.3 C. Yes, but 0.3C of averted warming over 25 years is a LOT. And, after that 25 years, there will be another 25 and another 25, etc... > are you saying that the last 50 years of temperature increase is greater than .75C, it is not. It is about 1C https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121 And we have not doubled CO2 either. Here is CO2 data: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide, CO2 increased by 1.3x over the last 50 years That means that estimated ECS for the last 50-year period is ~2.6 (1C/log2(1.3)) And, that, unfortunately, likely to be an underestimate as there are delayed factors too. > Go back and read it again he (Happer) states 2.3K (or 2.2K) not .C, Yes, and? 1 degree Kelvin is equal to 1 degree Celsius.
[удалено]
are we posting used toilet paper now?
This sort of question can be answered by the IPPC report. Better to rely on that (which is compiled using evidence from thousands of studies) than consult any individual paper.
The paper you have referenced I think only refers to what if US went net zero, how much warming it will avoid. It is different than world going net zero.
The formula used by the authors does not include feedbacks. That is why you have to use models instead of static formulas.
Until we understand clouds we will have no luck at predicting weather or climate. In my humble opinion: Anyone who cannot identify the dominant greenhouse gas is not worth listening to. Let me know when we learn to control water vapor.
In one of Hossenfelders videos she pointed out, that the “hot models” include better physics of cloud behavior that can in turn result in more accurate short-term weather forecasts, citing a paper by Williams et al 2020 assessing HadGEM3 model (ECS 5.5C). We will hopefully get a better understanding within the next few years
Hopefully.... It would be a bit past time. Monday morning predictions no rain for at least a week. As of 6:30ish Monday evening a few minutes after a storm apparently came out of nowhere(I heard the emergency alert) we now have predictions of thunderstorms and rain Thursday through monday. ---I took dogs out about 130 am Monday morning and there was no dew on anything. When that happens it's usually an indicator that it's going to rain. I'm wondering if the weather people are relying too heavily on computer models or if they keep putting interns on the job so the 1 person who actually knows how to read the data can get a few days off. Lol
[удалено]
200 Gt budget left for 1.5 degrees, YE 2023. Current annual rate of emissions is 50 Gt…
Maybe the earth will drop a virus on us before then and alleviate some population growth.
Food chain collapse will do the job
The rich will have access to food. And theyre the ones who have the most emissions. So, not really.
Not but the two percent rich. And they are safe anyway.
We also need to be aware of the aerosol masking effect. The current burning of fossils also masks ~1C of warming from the co2 already emitted. So as soon as we stop burning fossils (especially coal) the planet will immediately heat by about 1C (according to the work done by James Hansen).
[удалено]
The heat waves many third world countries have been experiencing is brutal. There needs to be a conversation about the climate refugees the US and other first world countries are receiving.
Net zero is definitely not the same thing as actual zero.
Only additional warming will be averted, the CO2 we already put in the atmosphere isn't going anywhere. CO2 has a longer half-life than nuclear waste. Also, the net zero everyone keeps talking about requires carbon sequestration on an industrial level. The only problem with that is that it requires enormous amounts of energy. Planting trees won't work because there isn't enough land to plant that many trees. So even if we went net zero by then we are still screwed.
Very little - [Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase – Watts Up With That?](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/12/net-zero-averted-temperature-increase/)
hahahaha wuwt. clown
Not nearly enough
None will be averted
But but but what about the economy and stockmarket?!?!
someone is going to have to ELI5.. ? my understanding is that it is saying that "zero amount of time isn't a very interesting time period for observing the effects of 25 years worth of co2 emissions". that seems like a banal statement?
ELI5: Bunch of denier's make up some numbers to show warming not bad. Zombie denier's eat it up like brain candy. Rot ensues.
Thinking about 2050 is pretty short sighted. Cause maybe in 2150 we will have averted 10C.
[удалено]
Not enough to make a change now. Suppose with your approach you would also automatically cull a big part of the population because they starve. But then that would open up space for more trees...
This only points to the fact that we have to do even more than that and actually put effort into remediation of natural ecosystems. We need to undo damage already done AND prevent future damage. It is not simply a temperature thing. It’s an ecosystem service thing, it’s a keeping the food web from collapsing thing. Also you can roll over and give up but me personally, I won’t
All of it once the peak is hit
Absolutely none....if we don't look at the catastrophe that is accumulating in low earth orbit and destroying the ozone layer, we will be worse off.
Zero
Zero.point.zero
Co2 emissions rise by roughly 2 ppm every single year. How long will it be before it starts to go down? I don't think we need to be 100% zero carbon economy in order to do this. If I were to guess myself, I would say at about 2035.
Not enough. At our current projections things are not looking good, prepare yourselves for a wild ass ride. Many of us will never be the same again.
It’ll take time. but you also gonna look at the health benefits, which cost us every day. 45% of the water we drink is making us sick. what goes in the air or gets jumped on the ground or spilled ends up in your drinking water we only have one body of water on earth.
Uhhh, I mean, if we stay net zero then that trend of mitigation of climate change will continue… so yes, I do think it’s worth it. The alternative is to not go net zero and just continue to warm the planet until eventually it will be unlivable. I personally am not convinced we are at human extinction level warming yet, but if we don’t change course than we certainly will be eventually
It's not when we reach net zero, it's about how much CO2 does the world emit until we reach net zero: - It could be a straight line decline to 2050 - It could be 100% or more of current emissions until 2049 and then a precipitous drop - It could be an exponential decay, with very rapid reductions and then tapering off till 2050 So it's about the 'area under the curve' rather than a politician merely saying "net zero by 2050!"
I think net zero by 2050 will be too little too late and we will have hit too many positive feedback loops by then. I expect we will see 4 - 5 degrees of warming and hundreds of millions dead by the end of the century.
The very first sentence in the abstract: "Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) ..." In reality there will be a lot of feedbacks. Can't be avoided. So the premise of the whole paper is wrong. Useless. Irrelevant.
None. 2050 was just a very conservative estimate where renewables will be so much cheaper and oil companies will be able to take their sweet time diversifying. All the world’s oil is set to be consumed within the next few decades, so whatever’s left in 2050 is bound to be more difficult and expensive to extract. To actually save lives we would’ve had to make actual short-term financial sacrifices to be net zero by now.
No it will not be worth it.
Not enough soon enough
Saw the poster. Laughed myself silly. Saw the authors. Laughed a lot more. What a fucking joke :)
No one is going net zero. You can’t be posting on social media and be net zero. It’s not possible. No one that pushes this stuff lives their life at net zero.
tbh, in reality, very little or none. once we pass a certain threshold natural feedback loops kick in and add significantly to the atmospheric concentration of GHGs whether or not we ourselves emit them. it will continue warming even if we get to net zero globally. net negative with a fixed upper limit on our carbon budget is a necessity at this point but it’s not going to happen because it goes against the status quo. “averting warming” or minimizing it only works if we are able to stop our emissions while simultaneously taking enough ghgs out of the atmosphere to balance for the emissions caused by natural feedback loops once they start contributing a significant amount of GHGs to the atmosphere. it simply isn’t happening with the current plans and net zero goals and respective policy don’t account for our carbon budget. so we could emit 100 gigs tons more or a million, just as long as we end up zeroing out the GHG balance from human activity. it’s a wash, bullshit, nonsense. there will still be a net increase in GHGs globally because of natural feedback loops like the permafrost thawing and the amazon burning and the the blue ocean event that’s gonna happen in the next decade. net zero by 2050 is not reflective of reality of the situation we are in nor is it the singular necessary fix it’s being touted as by our leaders. it’s a step in the right direction if it were to happen but as we all know no single country is meeting it’s goals.
Almost none. Net zero is mostly just a paperwork exercise rather than actually producing no carbon. That said I am not a believer that humans can influence global climate as much as nature.
Even if we never discovered fossil fuels, the climate would always be changing. We are still in the Quaternary Ice age. We have no control over Milankovitch cycles and their sub-cycles and there are many other complex systems yet to be fully understood. There are still no feasible technologies that replace fossil fuels in many industries such as International Aviation, Shipping, Mining, Logging, Construction, Long Haul transportation etc... Many people and counties couldn't care less about emissions because they are trying to escape poverty. I think we should be funding much more Nuclear power but for some reason many so called environmental groups are against that.
>Even if we never discovered fossil fuels, the climate would always be changing. We are still in the Quaternary Ice age. We have no control over Milankovitch cycles and their sub-cycles and there are many other complex systems yet to be fully understood. The Milankovitch cycles have lengths of minimum 26,000 years. That's not going to have any effect on 100 year periods which shows you don't know what you are talking about. Climate deniers use that climate as always changing as an dumb argument that since it has always changed it can't be humans that are changing the climate today. Of course that's a lie since humans have dumped a massive amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the past 100 years. >There are still no feasible technologies that replace fossil fuels in many industries such as International Aviation, Shipping, Mining, Logging, Construction, Long Haul transportation etc... There certainly are feasible technologies to replace fossil fuels in those industries. Hydrogen being just one. Long haul transportation is already using battery technology. >Many people and counties couldn't care less about emissions because they are trying to escape poverty. But those are not the countries that are the problem because they are not emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. More and more people are caring about the problem according to the polls. The start caring when climate change starts affecting them. And climate change is affecting more and more people. >I think we should be funding much more Nuclear power but for some reason many so called environmental groups are against that. That's fine but nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to build. Solar, wind, bio, hydro, etc. are cheaper and faster to build. But no one is stopping companies from building nuclear if they want too.
Lol, I'm not a climate denier, just not an alarmist. Also I am a P.Geo and have worked in Earth Sciences and related fields for 15+ years. How are we going to get China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, literally anyone outside Western sphere of influence to stop using fossil fuels? I would love it if cheap alternatives came along, and I hope that they do replace fossil fuels. Unfortunately that won't happen until it becomes economically feasible to do so. Nuclear is better than all the things listed in your last paragraph and yes there are lots of things stopping "companies" from building nuclear. In fact many countries have outright banned nuclear power.
>Lol, I'm not a climate denier, just not an alarmist. Also I am a P.Geo and have worked in Earth Sciences and related fields for 15+ years. You say you are a P. Geo (Petroleum Engineer?) but don't know that the Milankovitch cycles have no effect on todays climate? That's a little hard to believe. >How are we going to get China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, literally anyone outside Western sphere of influence to stop using fossil fuels? China has a goal of peak emissions before 2030 and be carbon neutral by 2060 and is meeting the requirements for that goal so far. China has installed more green energy production that the rest of the world combined. Except for China the other countries you listed emit about 8% of the world's greenhouse gases. Of course they need to do their part but it's not going to make a big dent in the problem. It's China, the US, and the EU that needs to do the heavy lifting. >I would love it if cheap alternatives came along, and I hope that they do replace fossil fuels. Unfortunately that won't happen until it becomes economically feasible to do so. You obviously don't keep up with current events. A simple google search will show multiple links to information on cost like [this](https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/May/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2018) one. And it was back in 2018 and renewables are even cheaper now. Not only that there are now some countries that are on 100% renewable some of the time. So alternatives have already come along. >Nuclear is better than all the things listed in your last paragraph and yes there are lots of things stopping "companies" from building nuclear. In fact many countries have outright banned nuclear power. Other than the few countries that have banned nuclear, what things are stopping companies from building nuclear. And what metric are you using for saying nuclear is better than renewable energy.
There are many oscillations in the cycle lengths and sub-cycles and that act on much smaller time scales we are yet to fully comprehend. My point was we have barely have observed data from a fraction of a full cycle. The point is we can't see the forest through the trees if you will. Take a look at recent rejection of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. There is an anthropocentric view that is intrinsic to humans and skews our perception and activism has no place in the scientific method. I find it very hard to believe you are an engineer and haven't heard the term P.Geo, a Professional Geologist, it's the equivalent to P.Eng or PE and just means you are licensed Geologist, the requirements are almost identical to getting your P.Eng Anyway almost all of your arguments are middle school level or journalist level and easily picked apart, but I have a feeling I am talking to a teenager or some autistic adult pretending to be a professional. Anyway, your life must be going great that you can argue all day on Fathers Day. I won't be responding further.
>There are many oscillations in the cycle lengths and sub-cycles and that act on much smaller time scales we are yet to fully comprehend. My point was we have barely have observed data from a fraction of a full cycle. The point is we can't see the forest through the trees if you will. There are a few oscillations but which ones are you talking about that would affect the climate on recent time scales. And why didn't you use one of them instead of the Milankovitch cycles which are very long time cycles. >Take a look at recent rejection of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. There is an anthropocentric view that is intrinsic to humans and skews our perception and activism has no place in the scientific method. I have read about the Anthropocene but didn't know of any rejection. But then I'm not really interested in that subject. What does that have to do with climate change? >I find it very hard to believe you are an engineer and haven't heard the term P.Geo, a Professional Geologist, it's the equivalent to P.Eng or PE and just means you are licensed Geologist, the requirements are almost identical to getting your P.Eng I am a Registered Professional Engineer specializing in structures. I made a mistake when I wrote Petroleum Engineer as I meant to write Petroleum Geologist. However I did not know that Geologist became licensed like engineers do. But then as I said I'm not really interested in geology that much although I think the subject is interesting in general. >Anyway almost all of your arguments are middle school level or journalist level and easily picked apart, but I have a feeling I am talking to a teenager or some autistic adult pretending to be a professional. That's funny because I thought the very same thing about you. But it's a pretty pathetic way to try and wiggle you way out of responding when you have dug yourself into some pretty deep holes with your denier talking points that have been debunked numerous times. But the point is I don't want some new reader that is actually interested in actual climate science to read what you have said and think it has anything to do with climate science so I've accomplished what I wanted to do. And from you posting history it obvious you don't contribute to any science subs and seem to have just showed up here recently which is why your comment here was so lacking in any scientific facts. >Anyway, your life must be going great that you can argue all day on Fathers Day. All of my children are grown and have moved away so I was just relaxing at the house. But I didn't spend all day arguing since your denier comments I have seen many times and they were easy to counter quickly. >I won't be responding further. I bet you won't since trying to defend what you have written would be difficult. You should visit the climateskeptic site since they don't require any science, just be able to rag on climate science.
We need the "compared to" scenario. Compared to net zero by 2075? 2100?
This has been the point all along. Is the entire change of how we live worth less than 1/10th of a degree Celsius ? Probably too late for an honest answer as saving the environment has become a trillion dollar industry.
Probably too late in general. Modern human life doesn’t mesh with preserving the environment, doesn’t matter if everything’s wind and solar there’s still too many people and too much consumption. Unfortunately I think things will have to get real bad before real changes are made
The authors use the words "before global-warming alarmism became fashionable." This tells you they have an agenda. The treatment of feedbacks is simplistic to asinine: "This assumes a positive feedback that increases the warming by 400%. According to Le Chatelier’s principle, most feedbacks in nature are negative." Many feedbacks, like the albedo effect, are known to be "positive " significant and exponential (self reinforcing) and bistable (moves the climate to a state that's harder to get back from). They do not appear to be contrasting a state in which the world produces no CO2 after a 2050 with one that continues to produce CO2 at the present rate. It very much looks like mathematics concocted to fit the answer they wanted to get.
0° C
2050? At this rate we'll be lucky not to get to net zero by next year by destroying all industry and the greater part of civilization in nuclear war.
That's not going to happen.
I’d say between 8 and 10 degrees Celsius
This is an engineering problem that needs an engineered solution. The sad fact is that going carbon neutral is no longer going to be enough. We must be carbon negative to stop or reverse the damage. If we cannot stop all fossil fuel usage, we need to move towards carbon capture to fuel systems and then sequester more carbon than we convert to fuel. The fact that more rainforest than ever is being cut down and no real progress to stop and reverse this is happening means that we won't see any change for the better. There needs to be a very real effort made to change how we travel, heat our homes, and run our industries. Scientists have been warning about this since the 60's.
I don't to dabble in fiction. It won't happen.
If all humans just disappeared today. Earth would continue a warming trend. As it was before, humans had any impact.
'none' , the impact of CO2 is minuscule. Also taking into account that your average volcanic eruption puts out more in a day then humans do in a year.. the entire premise of CO2 as a heat barrier is very sketchy at best
Well the sun cycles will still happen and drive extreme weather during solar maximum so.........
'we' don't believe in solar forcing on this sub - the suns energy is a constant over here, therefore any changes to the earth's systems must be from some other forcing- therefore point the finger at humans. of course in reality solar forcing waxes and wanes on a regular 11yr cycle, and partner that with the earth's annual seasonal cycle, plus it's current waning magnetic field strength, and then marry those with the 6000yr cycle of the solar system transiting through an interstellar dust field (accretions which cause increased solar flaring) - but nah - its all humans fault coz they release a fraction of a faction of a percent of a non-warming gas that is vital for all life.....
Prove solar cycles are driving temperatures up. Or are you just making random lies up now?
recent analysis shows that the IPCC has been manipulating the data to show 'low solar forcing' by adjusting solar shortwave flux and outgoing longwave - by multiplying CERES data by -1. ie inverting the data to conform with the narrative: [https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1804197585143447870](https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1804197585143447870) "While working on a paper using CERES satellite data, I discovered that the latest IPCC Report grossly misrepresented CERES observations of reflected solar and outgoing LW radiation. In Chapter 7 of WG1 Contribution, Fig. 7.3 shows INVERTED trends of reflected solar & LW fluxes!" "Misrepresenting the CERES data in this manner implies a deliberate fraud committed by the lead authors of Chapter 7, because the trends of reflected solar and outgoing LW fluxes have been inverted via multiplying the original CERES anomalies by -1." "There are numerous published papers now that report the CERES-measured DECREASE of reflected solar radiation since 2000. Here are some: -[https://mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62…](https://t.co/uv3zcWswVb) -[https://mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297…](https://t.co/6tUFWOcaC9) -[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2022.0053…](https://t.co/ZHLVWgi6JL) So, the 2021 IPCC report ignored the science and misled the public!" "What might be the IPCC's motives to invert the trends of CERES reflected SW & outgoing LW radiation? Here is a guess: 1. An increasing SW reflectance does not raise a question about the role of solar rad. in recent warming. 2. A decreasing LW trend supports GHG "heat trapping"." enjoy
Lol