Climate Change

[Alan V]

Kaneda asked me to restart our climate change discussion.

The Paris Accord of 2015, ratified by 179 nations, set a climate goal intended to keep the global average surface temperature between 1.5 and 2.0 C above the preindustrial average. 

This goal was significant because above 2.0 C, natural positive feedback loops (like melting permafrost releasing more CO2 and methane) are much more likely to kick in, resulting in self-reinforcing climate change.

While the actual commitments were always known to be inadequate to reach such an optimistic goal, it was understood that restrictions would be tightened at later dates, just as they were to control CFCs and other chemicals after the initial Montreal Protocol agreement to address the ozone hole problem.

However, now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a more detailed study to encourage nations to focus on the lower, 1.5 C goal because of significant worries about the 2.0 C number.

One conclusion from the new report: "To keep to 1.5 C, CO2 emissions would have to decline by about 45% between 2010 and 2030 and hit net zero in 2050. That’s significantly faster than what is needed for 2C – a reduction of around 20% by 2030 and net zero by 2075."

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10...ecHdN9nnGc

(The linked article summarizes 37 key points from the new report.)

[Chas]

With President Fuckface pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Accord, there is precious little hope for any improvement. 

We need to rid ourselves of this ignorant shithead. 

[Alan V]

With President Fuckface pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Accord, there is precious little hope for any improvement. 

We need to rid ourselves of this ignorant shithead. 

"In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States cannot be before November 4, 2020, four years after the Agreement came into effect in the United States and one day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The White House later clarified that the U.S. will abide by the four-year exit process. Until the withdrawal takes effect, the United States may be obligated to maintain its commitments under the Agreement, such as the requirement to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations."

"Following Trump's announcement, the governors of several U.S. states formed the United States Climate Alliance to continue to advance the objectives of the Paris Agreement at the state level despite the federal withdrawal. As of February 22, 2018, 16 states and Puerto Rico have joined the alliance, and similar commitments have also been expressed by other state governors, mayors, and businesses."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta..._Agreement

From what I understand, the U.S. is likely to meet its commitments to the Paris Accord because of the efforts of states, cities, and businesses.  Of course, we could do even better if Trump wasn't tampering with so many regulations about car emissions and other environmental standards. If climate change is our priority, we still need to get Trump out of office as soon as possible.

[Alan V]

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10...ecHdN9nnGc

To clarify the above, it was previously thought that the thermal inertia of the oceans was 0.5 to 0.6 C.  That would mean since we are 1.0 C above the preindustrial today, that we have already surpassed the 1.5 C target.  Even if we put no more CO2 into the atmosphere, the Earth would continue to warm to the 1.5 C temperature in a few decades.

"[Climatologist James] Hansen remarks, 'We're putting in the pipeline additional change that will occur over the next several decades, and which will be difficult if not impossible to avoid.' By his estimates, the current energy imbalance is likely to produce an additional 0.5 to 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming in global average surface temperature...."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur...ucket4.php

However, the linked article about the IPCC report clarifies that point:

"3. There is a time lag between greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the climate. That means the world is already committed to further warming and sea level rise, but past emissions are unlikely to tip temperatures over the 1.5 C threshold."

And:

"20. How much carbon dioxide can be emitted before we pass the 1.5 C threshold? The way 'carbon budgets' are calculated has changed since the IPCC’s last big assessment in 2014, adding some 300 gigatons to the estimate. But it’s still a slim window."

[Kaneda]

Here’s the infographic that was making rounds in the wake of the latest IPCC report. Conspicuously absent are non-linear state shifts from all those major interactive feedbacks you like to remind us about.



3.0C by mid-century is fine. I didn’t want to live to see old age anyway.

[Alan V]

Here’s the infographic that was making rounds in the wake of the latest IPCC report. Conspicuously absent are non-linear state shifts from all those major interactive feedbacks you like to remind us about.

I like your graph, since it sums up so much.

However, the straight line to the end of the century of the business-as-usual scenario is also incorrect for another reason besides the positive feedbacks kicking in.  Simply put, at the rate we are burning them, the world will run out of economic fossil fuels within that period.  That will bring us back down to Earth -- or run us off a cliff.

[Kaneda]

Here’s the infographic that was making rounds in the wake of the latest IPCC report. Conspicuously absent are non-linear state shifts from all those major interactive feedbacks you like to remind us about.

I like your graph, since it sums up so much.

However, the straight line to the end of the century of the business-as-usual scenario is also incorrect for another reason besides the positive feedbacks kicking in.  Simply put, at the rate we are burning them, the world will run out of economic fossil fuels within that period.  That will bring us back down to Earth -- or run us off a cliff.

Well, every cloud has a silver lining.

[EvieTheAvocado]

The biggest trouble with climate change is the fact that most people don't care about what happens to this planet after they die.

[Kaneda]

The biggest trouble with climate change is the fact that most people don't care about what happens to this planet after they die.

I think it’s apparent that a lot of people don’t give a shit what happens to the planet while they’re alive, either.

[EvieTheAvocado]

The biggest trouble with climate change is the fact that most people don't care about what happens to this planet after they die.

I think it’s apparent that a lot of people don’t give a shit what happens to the planet while they’re alive, either.

It depends if it affects them.

[Alan V]

This article discusses strategies for removing excessive CO2 from the atmosphere.

"In its most recent assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that we may have as little as 12 years to cut our greenhouse gas emissions in half compared to today’s levels to limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a benchmark to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change. It also reports that every scenario for doing this requires pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, also known as 'negative emissions.' The low-end IPCC estimate requires pulling 100 gigatons of carbon dioxide removal by 2100, roughly double the amount that humanity produces in a year today. The high-end estimate is 1,000 gigatons, effectively forcing humanity to undo 20 years of global greenhouse gas emissions. Either way, it means that carbon removal is no longer just a potential strategy for fighting climate change. Given the very high likelihood we will overshoot our emissions reduction targets, carbon removal is now an absolute necessity for avoiding worst-case scenarios."

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme...on-dioxide

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Most of you people are screwed. I'm lucky, I have emphysema. I'll go early.

[Kaneda]

Most of you people are screwed. I'm lucky, I have emphysema. I'll go early.

Not if we hit midnight next summer, you ain’t.

[Alan V]

Most of you people are screwed.

Thinking we can't do anything to change the future is a variety of denialism.  We can do lots of little things, and every day too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Most of you people are screwed.

Thinking we can't do anything to change the future is a variety of denialism.  We can do lots of little things, and every day too.

[Kaneda]

Most of you people are screwed. I'm lucky, I have emphysema. I'll go early.

Not if we hit midnight next summer, you ain’t.

By midnight, I’m referring the the arcting melting completely in the summer. 

That’s going to put an end to the whole human experiment real quick, I tell you what.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Most of you people are screwed.

Thinking we can't do anything to change the future is a variety of denialism.  We can do lots of little things, and every day too.

LOL.

[Alan V]

Most of you people are screwed.

Thinking we can't do anything to change the future is a variety of denialism.  We can do lots of little things, and every day too.

LOL.

I apologize.  I needed to provide more context.

Denialism is a matter of degrees:

1. Climate change is not happening.
2. People aren't causing climate change.
3. Climate change will be good for us.
4. We can postpone dealing with climate change.
5. It will cost too much to fight climate change.
6. Technology can solve all of our climate change problems.
7. There's nothing we can do about climate change.  All is lost.

All of these statements are counter-factual, though number 6 comes closest to being true.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And why do you think I'm a denialist, please.

[Alan V]

And why do you think I'm a denialist, please.

You're not.  My misstatement.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And why do you think I'm a denialist, please.

You're not.  My misstatement.

Fair 'nuff.

[Alan V]

I read The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis. In the book, the author wrote a series of stories about the experiences of a variety of interesting people working for the government, but the message was still clear.  Americans vastly undervalue what their government agencies do for them on a daily basis, primarily because those agencies don't promote their many good works -- unlike businesses who advertise.

Because of this ignorance, politicians and especially Republicans have promoted the counter-factual message that the government wastes taxpayers' money.  The hostility this generates is a big reason Trump was elected, and he took his election as a mandate to appoint people who are actively hostile to the agencies they oversee.  Such people have a motivation to remain ignorant, which is why they neglected the transition of important information.  It's also why they appoint under-qualified or even unqualified people who are merely loyal to the president and his aims.  

And this is why Trump appointees may end up dropping the ball with the so-called "fifth risk," which is project management for risk mitigation and R&D.  They are simply too uninformed to understand the future economic and quality-of-life importance of such programs.  The big casualties of this short-sightedness are science and especially climate change science.

The most important quote I read in the book is this one: "Here is where the Trump administration's willful ignorance plays a role.  If your ambition is to maximize short-term gain without regard to the long-term cost, you are better off not knowing the cost.  If you want to preserve your personal immunity to the hard problems, it's better never to really understand those problems.  There is an upside to ignorance, and a downside to knowledge.  Knowledge makes life messier.  It makes it a bit more difficult for a person who wishes to shrink the world to a worldview."

In this case, the worldview is pro-business and anti-government completely out of proportion to the real value of both.

[Yonadav]

I read The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis.  In the book, the author wrote a series of stories about the experiences of a variety of interesting people working for the government, but the message was still clear.  Americans vastly undervalue what their government agencies do for them on a daily basis, primarily because those agencies don't promote their many good works -- unlike businesses who advertise.

Because of this ignorance, politicians and especially Republicans have promoted the counter-factual message that the government wastes taxpayers' money.  The hostility this generates is a big reason Trump was elected, and he took his election as a mandate to appoint people who are actively hostile to the agencies they oversee.  Such people have a motivation to remain ignorant, which is why they neglected the transition of important information.  It's also why they appoint under-qualified or even unqualified people who are merely loyal to the president and his aims.  

And this is why Trump appointees may end up dropping the ball with the so-called "fifth risk," which is project management for risk mitigation and R&D.  They are simply too uninformed to understand the future economic and quality-of-life importance of such programs.  The big casualties of this short-sightedness are science and especially climate change science.

The most important quote I read in the book is this one: "Here is where the Trump administration's willful ignorance plays a role.  If your ambition is to maximize short-term gain without regard to the long-term cost, you are better off not knowing the cost.  If you want to preserve your personal immunity to the hard problems, it's better never to really understand those problems.  There is an upside to ignorance, and a downside to knowledge.  Knowledge makes life messier.  It makes it a bit more difficult for a person who wishes to shrink the world to a worldview."

In this case, the worldview is pro-business and anti-government completely out of proportion to the real value of both.

I read excerpts from this book before it came out, and I decided not to buy it.  The rampant Trump era exploration of very serious issues through the lens of hobbyhorse villainy became very tedious to me, very fast.

[Alan V]

The rampant Trump era exploration of very serious issues through the lens of hobbyhorse villainy became very tedious to me, very fast.

Yabut, it gives you so many opportunities to express your peculiar brand of sneery superiority!

[Yonadav]

The rampant Trump era exploration of very serious issues through the lens of hobbyhorse villainy became very tedious to me, very fast.

Yabut, it gives you so many opportunities to express your peculiar brand of sneery superiority!  

Uh huh.  Whereas hobbyhorse villainy is a popular rather than a peculiar sneering superiority.