Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Legbiter]

According to your article, from 1999, it was expected to take 7,000 years.

Yes it'll take 2000 years to melt instead and raise sea levels by an extra 2 meters. I recommend googling the Eemian interglacial, how long it lasted and what conditions were like to see what the next 5000 years may look like before a new Ice Age comes.

[crazy canuck]

Well, it figures that you are also a climate change denier.

[Zanza]

At least for coastal areas.  Now the race is to keep warming below 1.5 to avoid other catastrophic effects.

That's not really achieveable anymore, right? It will be more.

[crazy canuck]

At least for coastal areas.  Now the race is to keep warming below 1.5 to avoid other catastrophic effects.

That's not really achieveable anymore, right? It will be more.

It is theoretically feasible, which is why I keep using that number. But I agree it's not very practical anymore.

I just don't like thinking about what's going to happen when we go above 1.5.

[Syt]

Wrll, from what I understand, even if we manage to turn things around in the next few years, climate would continue to worsen for quite a while before it improves due to the time delay between cause and effect.

[Legbiter]

Well, it figures that you are also a climate change denier.

You are a moron.

[Josquius]

Wrll, from what I understand, even if we manage to turn things around in the next few years, climate would continue to worsen for quite a while before it improves due to the time delay between cause and effect.

Worse.
We could potentially have pushed things over a few tipping points which means even if humans stop all emissions tomorrow nature could take over with making sure some things become screwed.
1.5 is the number often repeated for this but it's an iffy measure we are already floating near.
Nonetheless we definitely have it in us to make things much much worse if we don't cut back a lot.

[crazy canuck]

Wrll, from what I understand, even if we manage to turn things around in the next few years, climate would continue to worsen for quite a while before it improves due to the time delay between cause and effect.

Worse.
We could potentially have pushed things over a few tipping points which means even if humans stop all emissions tomorrow nature could take over with making sure some things become screwed.
1.5 is the number often repeated for this but it's an iffy measure we are already floating near.
Nonetheless we definitely have it in us to make things much much worse if we don't cut back a lot.

This

[Grey Fox]

When did heat pumps become a climate change darling?  Seems like just yesterday we were talking about Europe switching to heat pumps to get out from under the Rooskis.

I'm late but modern heat pump technology is quite efficient with energy use. 1:3.6 in the cheapest ones.

And, unlike what the English usually think, it really doesn't take much space.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting - latest version of Goldman Sachs' "cost curve" of decarbonisation:


https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/infographics/carbonomics.html

Basically there's a few areas that have become more expensive - mainly transport - but most is falling in cost. So the cost to decarbonise 75% of the world economy is about $3 trillion pa, which is about half what it was just four years ago. We're now under 3% of global GDP to decarbonise that much of the world economy.

In addition the proportion under zero is basically cheaper to decarbonise than not (I think a lot of this is renewables given how cheap solar especially and also  wind have become compared to fossil fuels). That's likely to grow and in general is likely to get cheaper.

I feel like we spend a lot of time stressing about the 25% that's going to be difficult and expensive when we really could just be getting on with the rest.

[Josquius]

Nice to see good news getting attention.

I hope amongst that hard 25% to ignore we aren't including smashing the planning system so we can build wind (and houses) in the UK.

[crazy canuck]

Some more hope

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/opinion/climate-change-report-us.html?unlocked_article_code=1._Uw.rMKX.GQkENExe6DGJ&smid=url-share

[Josquius]

What increasingly worries me tbh isn't global warming but the other dodgy effects of too much co2 in the atmosphere (and sea). The analogies of aquariums with imbalances and talk of coral die off et al.
Global warming... It does happen naturally. At nothing like the speed and scale of the current change. But it happens. And things are usually fine.
A carbon imbalalance though... Extinction level mass die off stuff.

Not to say climate change in itself isn't still a problem. We need to actually tackle it. But I am increasingly optimistic we should scrape through. On good days anyway

[crazy canuck]

Yes, and if the hopeful part of that article comes true, and CO2 levels dramatically drop because alternative energy sources become used exclusively or even predominantly, then the concerns of ocean acidification, etc. also decrease.

[Josquius]

Yes, and if the hopeful part of that article comes true, and CO2 levels dramatically drop because alternative energy sources become used exclusively or even predominantly, then the concerns of ocean acidification, etc. also decrease.

The trouble there is that's CO2 emissions. Not levels.
CO2 takes a long time to cycle out of the atmosphere, hundreds of years- tangentially this is where the new focus on methane is great. It dissipates within a decade or so. They really need to stop that endless Turkmenistan leak.
I've seen some reckoning we could already be past the danger level on CO2 levels.
And CO2 scrubbing technology.... Heavily fantasy level stuff, a black hole that sucks in money best spent on reduction and provides cover for polluters.