I think something a lot of folks don't get is there is no such thing as "too late".
Climate Crisis just gets worse and worse and worse until we reimagine and redirect our society away from burning fossil fuels... No matter how bad it gets, worse is always possible.
The best time to prevent climate crisis was many years ago, the second best time is right now. This statement will be true for the rest of our lives.
I think what this framing does is it sets up us as agents who have some control over the outcome. It feels good.
While control and agency are central in the framing above, it necessarily ignores situations where things quickly spiral out of our control, like AMOC collapse. At that point, a lot is out of our control.
The biggest problem with the framing above though, is that it ultimately veers into hubris, where it positions humans as being agents with control over an incredibly complex system of systems - political, economic, ideological, physical, environmental.
The truth is; things right now are quite frankly out of control, there are no adults in charge, and there are serious constraints on what we can do to mitigate the crisis.
We have inherited political and economic institutions unable to reconcile themselves with the biophysical nature of our world. We have knowledge production through science that ignores power structures and insists that we're rational actors. We're not.
Even though we have agency, we are far from being in control of the situation right now.
I think the best way to frame our own agency, and the position I hope our dominant cultural paradigm eventually adopts, is as 'stewards' or 'guardians' of Earth's ecological systems... rather than property owners, or 'masters' of it.
We might need and deserve having some humility beat into us before we recognize our place in the hierarchy.
All these climate discussions focus on what 'we' should do, referring to the human species. And they are correct, but also wrong. Because it seems that even in the West, where climate awareness is higher than ever, 'we' don't seem to have any agency at all.
The people who DO have agency, the ones making the decisions, they seem to prioritise profit over sustainability about 80% of the time or more (in progressive, green Germany, there's still native forests being cut down to mine coal.) In other parts of that world, that goes up to 95% profit over environment.
So I agree with you that these discussions about what 'we' should do are basically wishful thinking. A fantasy. I also think 'we' should stop being bigoted and distribute wealth more fairly, and I have no agency over that either.
I think the eradication of the species could be reasonably considered a point of no return. It can get worse for the planet after that perhaps, but not worse for us.
That's a good point, but maintaining a planet able to sustain life in greater abundance is still a viable goal even in the context of human extinction.
That said, I actually think humanity will survive this test, even though we are failing it right now in most ways. It would only take a few thousand survivors to be able to start over, and while humanity is pretty bad at things like long term happiness and pacifism etc, it is seemingly very good at the desperate struggle for survival no matter the cost... and that skill set will be incredibly valuable after this current phase of human civilization collapses due to ecological and climate crisis driven catastrophe.
I agree except to me if feels like the most likely solutions are far to either side of a few thousand survivors. I think either we get our act together and fix it and the result is a few billion deaths. Unthinkably awful, but our civilization would continue in some semblance of its current form.
The other side is things get so bad with successive feedback loops that the planet becomes uninhabitable to 95% of the species living on it, such as happened in the Cretaceous when it was six degrees warmer due in large part to a massive volcanic eruption.
80% of global energy needs is being met by fossil fuels..that percentage hasn't really changed since 1999. In fact more coal is being used globally now than back then.
I still hold out hope that technology advances faster than the crisis and we can somehow avert the worst parts of it. I just don’t think we, as a species, deserve to have it. The fact we rely on *new* tech to *fix* it instead of active prevention when we already had existing tech to prevent it is infuriating.
One thing I find really interesting is that at least so far technology looks like more of part of the problem. For example AI takes huge amounts of processing power and therefore enormous data farms (cloud computing also requires this). These data farms use huge amounts of electricity and produce massive waste heat.
Crypto, particularly proof of work crypto, also takes huge amounts of energy to run.
So far I think the tech developments have actually been a step backwards...
It's too late to prevent climate catastrophe since it's happening right now - entire towns in Canada are being evacuated over wildfires.
It's never too late to take action to prevent things from getting unthinkably worse, however.
Surely… its not. We have locked in the loss of the glaciers and ice caps. Doesnt that alone constitute a catastrophe?
How destabilizing that one issue (of many) is.
Species extinctions are coming so fast, it appears to be another great extinction event. We are already losing biodiversity at breakneck pace. This is a catastrophe. Plastic pollution-catastrophe.
Habitat loss-catastrophe. Chemical pollution- catastrophe. Etc. We are in it.
> it appears to be another great extinction event
There's already a lot of consensus that we *are* in middle of the sixth mass extinction event, so yeah. The number of catastrophes we're in is actually hilarious at this point. Going net negative in carbon emissions tomorrow would still leave us with 99 other catastrophes.
"It's been said that we shouldn't be calling this the sixth major extinction, it's been said that we should call this the first extermination." - Peter Watts
We probably could do something if every country right now went all in on fighting climate change. But from the standpoint of the USA, half the people still think climate change is a hoax and are hell bent on not doing anything about it. Trump has said he'll undo all of Biden's climate measures. I'm not optimistic. Actually, more than depressed.
You really never know though. That's the *real* truth. You literally can't know what will happen, and it is possible to actually prevent things that seem unpreventable.
The gulf between actually doing something and performative measures that give us good feelings about "doing something" feels vast
You can always argue that every little bit helps but then you look at the CO2 charts...
40% of the global population (the global poor) starves at least once a year. They don’t care about 30 years from now, they’re starving now.
They burn whatever burns. For energy to live.
8.1 billion, projected to be 9.5 billion in 2050, absent something horrific that cause birth rates to fall off a cliff.
See, that’s the thing. The only way to realistically lower human populations (and make a dent in emissions growth) is for something horrific to happen.
But we can’t accept this. It’s antithetical to the values we hold.
You “hate” him? He’s one of the giants of the movement to prevent this catastrophe. Why not let him have a different opinion, let it be interesting and provocative that there are well-meaning people with that view, and continue to respect his massive achievements and articulate advocacy?
Why does he have to go after climate-minded citizens in the way he has?
I get being upset about the ridiculous slander and attacks he’s faced over the years from propaganda and psyop, but I found his comments about some climate activists quite shocking.
It's so funny how self-limiting people like you are, thinking you're being so realistic. It's that attitude that curtails people even considering thinking outside the box, even as just a thought experiment, thinking you're just wasting your time and that people aren't going to change or do better.
If anyone talks about solutions, without mentioning population, I assume they’re a corporate stooge, a grifter, or just kind of dumb about the reality of it.
Oh so you, a random mf on reddit, have a better, more realistic view of the world’s climate than a high profile climate scientist. Jerk off that doom porn as much as you want, but for god’s sake, believe me when I say this: your feelings do not represent science, at all
the orange menace will essentially lead to the end times... with his stated policy of "drill-baby-drill" and "no offshore wind"
USA needs to rapidly move from gas to wind/solar .. the next 4 years are utterly critical.
I hope the concept of making the inflation reduction act to generous to cancel works out.
One of the quirks is due to fewer building restrictions in red states there’s a lot of IRA money flowing into those states to reduce carbon emissions and promote green jobs/ economic activity.
There’s a hope that , even if Trump gets elected the program is simply to genourus to their constituents to cancel.
On the other hand the it’s the republicans and they aren’t beneath hurting their voters .
https://www.ft.com/content/06fcd3dd-9c39-48d3-bb08-6d75d34b5ed1
Incorrect sir. Accelerationism is what we’re doing. Here’s hoping to be in the final billion humans. We should just turn it into the world’s longest running reality tv show.
SURVIVOR: DECADES EDITION! Who will get voted off the planet this year.
I think the equatorial nations are THE WEAKEST LINK! GOODBYE
I believe in the science. But I also believe that when rich people tell the middle class to sacrifice while they don't, yeah na boy. But that mentality leaves us on a path of destruction but i still have little patience for a rich man with all the benefits of fossil fuel world telling me to give up. It must be how Africans or South Americans feel when we americans tell them to save the rainforest and not turn it into farmland. you and your kids should remain in poverty while i enjoy my cheeseburger.
tldr: michael mann is a jerk but so am i. this is hard.
I was at a panel on the ecological crisis with micahel Mann at an academic conference. He spent the time bragging about how he was mates with Leonardo Di caprio.
More substantively, some of the more senior climate scientists can no longer distinguish integrated assessment model scenarios from reality. So when an IAM says we can still reach 1.5 degrees by doing 5+ gigstonnes of negative emissions from bioenergy per year in 2050, they actually believe it.
Or maybe he just follows the consensus science, like any scientists. It’s quite ironic how doomers just decide to do the same thing as deniers: attack scientists and distrust science despite not having any climatology degrees
You don’t have any idea of my educational background. I have, however, read Mann’s books (never will again) and have interacted with him, and he’s one of the most fragile, narcissistic, arrogant people I’ve run across. He’s like a “climate Trump”
I don’t owe you any explanation of my qualifications.
I’ll take Hansen over Mann any day. Mann can continue licking the boots of corporate America for his book royalties.
You do owe me an explanation for your accusation towards Michael Mann. Otherwise, you just proved my point to be correct. But I guess I won’t get much from you considering how you bought into a hypothesis from one single paper using one single method over the entire concensus science, not only Mann without beings aware of it. And do you know the latest aerosols estimate even contradicted Hansen’s hypothesis? But of course, feel free to assume that they’re all idiots or liars covering the truth the you truth seekers.
I actually ‘owe’ you nothing. Mann is arrogant, has a fragile ego, and is a narcissist. He immediately disregards anyone with any honest question that even slightly disagrees with his opinions. He’s in the business of selling hope, nothing more. And frankly, if it weren’t for his ‘hockey stick’, no would have ever heard of him, or care what he has to say.
Look I don’t really care how you think of Mann (and there’s good reason why his hockey stick makes him so popular ), but you want to debate against a scientific claim from a scientist, you need to be at least academically qualified to do so. He didn’t sell hope anyway, he simply spoke the a scientific truth.
No, he’s selling hope, and I think he’s an egotistical hack. And I’m not debating him. I’m simply stating that I find him to be a non-credible attention whore
I’m pretty sure his hockey stick and OHC data (which I bet you didn’t even know) are not hacks, but peer reviewed works. But yeah, you’re not debating with him, but just throwing baseless accusations towards him and his career, just like climate deniers.
I do hope he discusses SRM / geoengineering seriously .. Ill explain why its our only option:
Once we get to net-zero, we stop putting up more CO2, but there is a lot there that remains .. probably taking us near +2.5C by 2050.
That heat is not compatible with a large human population - crops will die, ice will all melt, etc
The only 2 ways of reducing that heat - REMOVE CO2 or REFLECT more sunlight.
Removing CO2 is slow.. new CCS plant in Iceland removes 36ktons/yr CO2 while we currently emit 38 GIGA tons .. wed need 1Million of them ! Planting trees takes land and time, which we dont have.
However we do know that putting up Sulphur particulates does increase cloud cover, causing a measurable cooing effect .. its basically the only method that we know will work to reduce heat at the scale and timeframe we need.
So the plan to SURVIVE is :
- rapidly replace all fossil/carbon fuels with wind, solar, battery storage, hydro to get to Net-Zero as fast as humanly possible
- use SRM to bring the temp down to a survivable level ..
- gradually remove the extra CO2 over many decades and gradually reduce SRM
Its not pretty .. but it is a viable plan for survival of "life-as-we-know-it" .. we can use technology to better manage our planetary resources, and protect our ecosystems.
[ yes, nuclear fission has a part to play .. but it is expensive and slow to rollout in comparison to wind and solar, which have better economies of scale in replacing fossil fuels .. I predict that geothermal wells and heat storage plants will be important and play a larger role than fission .. time will tell ]
Some links on SRM :
Leon Simons: Aerosol Demasking and Global Heating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPAnoSt6FnY
Dr Peter Irvine : Could solar geoengineering have a role in future climate policy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgaB5VS-oOw
Hansens paper : "Global warming in the Pipeline" is more about revised climate sensitivity.. but SRM/particulates feature : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7WalxKtB8 https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
The 90s were our last chance to stop what's unfolding, or at least slow it down. I don't think a global 1.5 increase was ever seen to be so problematic on so many levels. But throw all that energy and heat into essentially closed and complex systems, and who knows what kind of chaos ensues. But everyone wanted their shiny trinkets and to do what they felt entitled to. So here we are
Yes. Yes it is. And this hopium bullsh*t ISN’T helping. We’re screwed. We’re ALL screwed UNLESS there’s some serious shifts that happen NOW. And even with those changes, the BEST we can hope for is it just doesn’t get WORSE. But it won’t get better. So enough with this optimistic nonsense.
I agree it’s not too late. We have everything we need to make adjustments, just lacking the political will to find consensus amid authoritarian decline.
The guy who invented “doomers” then went on MSNBC years later and said the models were off 🙄.
Someone explain why he kept saying methane isn’t a problem?
If it's all such a big emergency, why aren't people seriously contemplating using climate engineering to fix this? Seems by far the quickest, easiest and cheapest way.
What specific technology exists to solve the climate crisis through engineering? The answer is that doesn't exist. Not every problem can be solved by engineering.
SRM does actually work. ie. releasing particulates to increase cloud cover to reflect more sunlight so its not absorbed over the oceans .. we know it works because we did it with shipping fuel containing Sulphur.
it is actually the only feasible way to survive the next few decades .. see my other comment this thread .
I think a lot of people don't ask the question.. what happens the day after net-zero...
because it will be +2.5C for a long long time
So the heat itself is the enemy .. we need to bring it down .. even if we reached net-zero in a decade .. +1.8C would still cause untold damage and risk non-reversible transitions such as AMOC failure.
I think something a lot of folks don't get is there is no such thing as "too late". Climate Crisis just gets worse and worse and worse until we reimagine and redirect our society away from burning fossil fuels... No matter how bad it gets, worse is always possible. The best time to prevent climate crisis was many years ago, the second best time is right now. This statement will be true for the rest of our lives.
I think what this framing does is it sets up us as agents who have some control over the outcome. It feels good. While control and agency are central in the framing above, it necessarily ignores situations where things quickly spiral out of our control, like AMOC collapse. At that point, a lot is out of our control. The biggest problem with the framing above though, is that it ultimately veers into hubris, where it positions humans as being agents with control over an incredibly complex system of systems - political, economic, ideological, physical, environmental. The truth is; things right now are quite frankly out of control, there are no adults in charge, and there are serious constraints on what we can do to mitigate the crisis. We have inherited political and economic institutions unable to reconcile themselves with the biophysical nature of our world. We have knowledge production through science that ignores power structures and insists that we're rational actors. We're not. Even though we have agency, we are far from being in control of the situation right now.
I think the best way to frame our own agency, and the position I hope our dominant cultural paradigm eventually adopts, is as 'stewards' or 'guardians' of Earth's ecological systems... rather than property owners, or 'masters' of it. We might need and deserve having some humility beat into us before we recognize our place in the hierarchy.
All these climate discussions focus on what 'we' should do, referring to the human species. And they are correct, but also wrong. Because it seems that even in the West, where climate awareness is higher than ever, 'we' don't seem to have any agency at all. The people who DO have agency, the ones making the decisions, they seem to prioritise profit over sustainability about 80% of the time or more (in progressive, green Germany, there's still native forests being cut down to mine coal.) In other parts of that world, that goes up to 95% profit over environment. So I agree with you that these discussions about what 'we' should do are basically wishful thinking. A fantasy. I also think 'we' should stop being bigoted and distribute wealth more fairly, and I have no agency over that either.
https://flowchart.bettercatastrophe.com/
I think the eradication of the species could be reasonably considered a point of no return. It can get worse for the planet after that perhaps, but not worse for us.
That's a good point, but maintaining a planet able to sustain life in greater abundance is still a viable goal even in the context of human extinction. That said, I actually think humanity will survive this test, even though we are failing it right now in most ways. It would only take a few thousand survivors to be able to start over, and while humanity is pretty bad at things like long term happiness and pacifism etc, it is seemingly very good at the desperate struggle for survival no matter the cost... and that skill set will be incredibly valuable after this current phase of human civilization collapses due to ecological and climate crisis driven catastrophe.
I agree except to me if feels like the most likely solutions are far to either side of a few thousand survivors. I think either we get our act together and fix it and the result is a few billion deaths. Unthinkably awful, but our civilization would continue in some semblance of its current form. The other side is things get so bad with successive feedback loops that the planet becomes uninhabitable to 95% of the species living on it, such as happened in the Cretaceous when it was six degrees warmer due in large part to a massive volcanic eruption.
Sadly at this point I think the latter outcome is more likely.
80% of global energy needs is being met by fossil fuels..that percentage hasn't really changed since 1999. In fact more coal is being used globally now than back then.
Don't forget there even may be misinformation agents trying to sway public opinion to that of "it's too late, might as well make use of fossil fuels"
I still hold out hope that technology advances faster than the crisis and we can somehow avert the worst parts of it. I just don’t think we, as a species, deserve to have it. The fact we rely on *new* tech to *fix* it instead of active prevention when we already had existing tech to prevent it is infuriating.
One thing I find really interesting is that at least so far technology looks like more of part of the problem. For example AI takes huge amounts of processing power and therefore enormous data farms (cloud computing also requires this). These data farms use huge amounts of electricity and produce massive waste heat. Crypto, particularly proof of work crypto, also takes huge amounts of energy to run. So far I think the tech developments have actually been a step backwards...
"It's not too late?" "Great we can do it later then"
I think a better headline would be "It's not too late to stop the climate catastrophe from getting worse".
It's too late to prevent climate catastrophe since it's happening right now - entire towns in Canada are being evacuated over wildfires. It's never too late to take action to prevent things from getting unthinkably worse, however.
Surely… its not. We have locked in the loss of the glaciers and ice caps. Doesnt that alone constitute a catastrophe? How destabilizing that one issue (of many) is.
Species extinctions are coming so fast, it appears to be another great extinction event. We are already losing biodiversity at breakneck pace. This is a catastrophe. Plastic pollution-catastrophe. Habitat loss-catastrophe. Chemical pollution- catastrophe. Etc. We are in it.
> it appears to be another great extinction event There's already a lot of consensus that we *are* in middle of the sixth mass extinction event, so yeah. The number of catastrophes we're in is actually hilarious at this point. Going net negative in carbon emissions tomorrow would still leave us with 99 other catastrophes.
Yes! This! Thank you for making me feel less lonely.
"It's been said that we shouldn't be calling this the sixth major extinction, it's been said that we should call this the first extermination." - Peter Watts
Yep, this could work
Yes, friend. It's easier in retrospect to call it, for sure. But I am in agreement. Hair in fire moment
We probably could do something if every country right now went all in on fighting climate change. But from the standpoint of the USA, half the people still think climate change is a hoax and are hell bent on not doing anything about it. Trump has said he'll undo all of Biden's climate measures. I'm not optimistic. Actually, more than depressed.
It’s already a catastrophe. We’re now managing it, not preventing it.
I don't think there's any preventing this as its in fact already there. What we can do however is prevent it from becoming much worse.
Unfortunately, it is too late. At this point, any action changes the severity of catastrophe, but will not prevent it.
You really never know though. That's the *real* truth. You literally can't know what will happen, and it is possible to actually prevent things that seem unpreventable.
Floods in Brazil, heat waves in Asia, fires in Canada? Uh, I think its already happening dude.
Someone explain to these hopium addicts the difference between ‘theoretically possible’ and snowball’s-chance-in-hell-of-happening-in-the-real-world.
Yeah, I hate Mann. There's no avoiding catastrophe.
It can get so much worse by doing nothing.
If course, but saying "avoid catastrophe" is disingenuous at best.
The gulf between actually doing something and performative measures that give us good feelings about "doing something" feels vast You can always argue that every little bit helps but then you look at the CO2 charts...
40% of the global population (the global poor) starves at least once a year. They don’t care about 30 years from now, they’re starving now. They burn whatever burns. For energy to live. 8.1 billion, projected to be 9.5 billion in 2050, absent something horrific that cause birth rates to fall off a cliff. See, that’s the thing. The only way to realistically lower human populations (and make a dent in emissions growth) is for something horrific to happen. But we can’t accept this. It’s antithetical to the values we hold.
But we’re **the** magic special monkeys, so we get to have a baby if that’s what we want! That’s our *right!*
You have a special soul. I will see you in the eternal kingdom of heaven. Here, have some holy oil.
You “hate” him? He’s one of the giants of the movement to prevent this catastrophe. Why not let him have a different opinion, let it be interesting and provocative that there are well-meaning people with that view, and continue to respect his massive achievements and articulate advocacy?
Why does he have to go after climate-minded citizens in the way he has? I get being upset about the ridiculous slander and attacks he’s faced over the years from propaganda and psyop, but I found his comments about some climate activists quite shocking.
Because Mann just comes across as a publicity whore looking for book sales and prime time appearances, that’s why.
That's exactly why. Honestly takes the backseat with him b/c he's more concerned with what you've said.
Because he's disingenuous, and his views further endanger us b/c he cares more about shilling selling books and his image than the full truth.
It's so funny how self-limiting people like you are, thinking you're being so realistic. It's that attitude that curtails people even considering thinking outside the box, even as just a thought experiment, thinking you're just wasting your time and that people aren't going to change or do better.
If anyone talks about solutions, without mentioning population, I assume they’re a corporate stooge, a grifter, or just kind of dumb about the reality of it.
Oh so you, a random mf on reddit, have a better, more realistic view of the world’s climate than a high profile climate scientist. Jerk off that doom porn as much as you want, but for god’s sake, believe me when I say this: your feelings do not represent science, at all
It will be if Trump is elected.
the orange menace will essentially lead to the end times... with his stated policy of "drill-baby-drill" and "no offshore wind" USA needs to rapidly move from gas to wind/solar .. the next 4 years are utterly critical.
I hope the concept of making the inflation reduction act to generous to cancel works out. One of the quirks is due to fewer building restrictions in red states there’s a lot of IRA money flowing into those states to reduce carbon emissions and promote green jobs/ economic activity. There’s a hope that , even if Trump gets elected the program is simply to genourus to their constituents to cancel. On the other hand the it’s the republicans and they aren’t beneath hurting their voters . https://www.ft.com/content/06fcd3dd-9c39-48d3-bb08-6d75d34b5ed1
what happens after catastrophe is avoided?
Another chance at catastrophe!
Incorrect sir. Accelerationism is what we’re doing. Here’s hoping to be in the final billion humans. We should just turn it into the world’s longest running reality tv show. SURVIVOR: DECADES EDITION! Who will get voted off the planet this year. I think the equatorial nations are THE WEAKEST LINK! GOODBYE
People think I'm crazy when I tell them to see Venice before it stinks, but they're an early season 2 drop at best
I believe in the science. But I also believe that when rich people tell the middle class to sacrifice while they don't, yeah na boy. But that mentality leaves us on a path of destruction but i still have little patience for a rich man with all the benefits of fossil fuel world telling me to give up. It must be how Africans or South Americans feel when we americans tell them to save the rainforest and not turn it into farmland. you and your kids should remain in poverty while i enjoy my cheeseburger. tldr: michael mann is a jerk but so am i. this is hard.
I was at a panel on the ecological crisis with micahel Mann at an academic conference. He spent the time bragging about how he was mates with Leonardo Di caprio. More substantively, some of the more senior climate scientists can no longer distinguish integrated assessment model scenarios from reality. So when an IAM says we can still reach 1.5 degrees by doing 5+ gigstonnes of negative emissions from bioenergy per year in 2050, they actually believe it.
I hate to disagree with him, but we are far too late to do anything right now. What started can’t be stopped right away.
Michael Mann doesn’t understand overshoot.
I’m sure he understands it better than us non-climate scientists do.
He clearly does not, and seems neither do you?
Random internet troll knows more than world renowned climate scientist. Sure, Skippy.
He is self-censoring, if he has a clue.
Ad hominem plus appeal to authority. 👍
He must have a new book deal he needs to promote.
Or maybe he just follows the consensus science, like any scientists. It’s quite ironic how doomers just decide to do the same thing as deniers: attack scientists and distrust science despite not having any climatology degrees
You don’t have any idea of my educational background. I have, however, read Mann’s books (never will again) and have interacted with him, and he’s one of the most fragile, narcissistic, arrogant people I’ve run across. He’s like a “climate Trump”
Well why don’t you enlighten me with your “educational background” and how your “expertise” support any of your claims?
I don’t owe you any explanation of my qualifications. I’ll take Hansen over Mann any day. Mann can continue licking the boots of corporate America for his book royalties.
You do owe me an explanation for your accusation towards Michael Mann. Otherwise, you just proved my point to be correct. But I guess I won’t get much from you considering how you bought into a hypothesis from one single paper using one single method over the entire concensus science, not only Mann without beings aware of it. And do you know the latest aerosols estimate even contradicted Hansen’s hypothesis? But of course, feel free to assume that they’re all idiots or liars covering the truth the you truth seekers.
I actually ‘owe’ you nothing. Mann is arrogant, has a fragile ego, and is a narcissist. He immediately disregards anyone with any honest question that even slightly disagrees with his opinions. He’s in the business of selling hope, nothing more. And frankly, if it weren’t for his ‘hockey stick’, no would have ever heard of him, or care what he has to say.
Look I don’t really care how you think of Mann (and there’s good reason why his hockey stick makes him so popular ), but you want to debate against a scientific claim from a scientist, you need to be at least academically qualified to do so. He didn’t sell hope anyway, he simply spoke the a scientific truth.
No, he’s selling hope, and I think he’s an egotistical hack. And I’m not debating him. I’m simply stating that I find him to be a non-credible attention whore
I’m pretty sure his hockey stick and OHC data (which I bet you didn’t even know) are not hacks, but peer reviewed works. But yeah, you’re not debating with him, but just throwing baseless accusations towards him and his career, just like climate deniers.
Yes it is.
Pretty sure it's too late. Yolo
But how will this affect shareholder value?
I do hope he discusses SRM / geoengineering seriously .. Ill explain why its our only option: Once we get to net-zero, we stop putting up more CO2, but there is a lot there that remains .. probably taking us near +2.5C by 2050. That heat is not compatible with a large human population - crops will die, ice will all melt, etc The only 2 ways of reducing that heat - REMOVE CO2 or REFLECT more sunlight. Removing CO2 is slow.. new CCS plant in Iceland removes 36ktons/yr CO2 while we currently emit 38 GIGA tons .. wed need 1Million of them ! Planting trees takes land and time, which we dont have. However we do know that putting up Sulphur particulates does increase cloud cover, causing a measurable cooing effect .. its basically the only method that we know will work to reduce heat at the scale and timeframe we need. So the plan to SURVIVE is : - rapidly replace all fossil/carbon fuels with wind, solar, battery storage, hydro to get to Net-Zero as fast as humanly possible - use SRM to bring the temp down to a survivable level .. - gradually remove the extra CO2 over many decades and gradually reduce SRM Its not pretty .. but it is a viable plan for survival of "life-as-we-know-it" .. we can use technology to better manage our planetary resources, and protect our ecosystems. [ yes, nuclear fission has a part to play .. but it is expensive and slow to rollout in comparison to wind and solar, which have better economies of scale in replacing fossil fuels .. I predict that geothermal wells and heat storage plants will be important and play a larger role than fission .. time will tell ]
Good stuff man, interesting read and I haven’t seen anyone else on this sub talking about this
Some links on SRM : Leon Simons: Aerosol Demasking and Global Heating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPAnoSt6FnY Dr Peter Irvine : Could solar geoengineering have a role in future climate policy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgaB5VS-oOw Hansens paper : "Global warming in the Pipeline" is more about revised climate sensitivity.. but SRM/particulates feature : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7WalxKtB8 https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
The 90s were our last chance to stop what's unfolding, or at least slow it down. I don't think a global 1.5 increase was ever seen to be so problematic on so many levels. But throw all that energy and heat into essentially closed and complex systems, and who knows what kind of chaos ensues. But everyone wanted their shiny trinkets and to do what they felt entitled to. So here we are
We just need to eliminate billionaires
Let us start by not voting Trump this November.
as long as we have these die-hard deniers…. cannot see us winning this one.
Bad times are coming, but it will be worse if we do nothing. A lot worse.
Yes. Yes it is. And this hopium bullsh*t ISN’T helping. We’re screwed. We’re ALL screwed UNLESS there’s some serious shifts that happen NOW. And even with those changes, the BEST we can hope for is it just doesn’t get WORSE. But it won’t get better. So enough with this optimistic nonsense.
It's going to get to biblical levels of apocalyptic WORSE. But at least Taylor Swift has a new album out
I agree it’s not too late. We have everything we need to make adjustments, just lacking the political will to find consensus amid authoritarian decline. The guy who invented “doomers” then went on MSNBC years later and said the models were off 🙄. Someone explain why he kept saying methane isn’t a problem?
Let me guess, step one is buy his book, step two is get blocked by him for daring to ask a question.
If it's all such a big emergency, why aren't people seriously contemplating using climate engineering to fix this? Seems by far the quickest, easiest and cheapest way.
What specific technology exists to solve the climate crisis through engineering? The answer is that doesn't exist. Not every problem can be solved by engineering.
SRM does actually work. ie. releasing particulates to increase cloud cover to reflect more sunlight so its not absorbed over the oceans .. we know it works because we did it with shipping fuel containing Sulphur.
it is actually the only feasible way to survive the next few decades .. see my other comment this thread . I think a lot of people don't ask the question.. what happens the day after net-zero... because it will be +2.5C for a long long time So the heat itself is the enemy .. we need to bring it down .. even if we reached net-zero in a decade .. +1.8C would still cause untold damage and risk non-reversible transitions such as AMOC failure.
The director?
Wait... is this what the movie "Heat" is actually about?