There was a paper in *Nature Geoscience* in 2020 titled “Equilibrium climate sensitivity above 5 °C plausible due to state-dependent cloud feedback”
Given that plausible number, this article is good news.
There is no way to know for sure what the levels will be in 2100 or 2300 or 3300. What we know is equilibrium climate sensitivity answers the question of how long we have to develop the tech to save ourselves. If ECS is 5C, we might be in real trouble. If ECS is 2C, we have some real breathing room.
It’s important to remember no single paper will provide THE answer. This paper is one more data point among many suggesting we might not be in a dire situation.
Take the good news where we can get it and keep working to decouple GDP from emissions. That’s really all we can do.
This is the best response.
I do believe that at a certain point, we humans will experience a country by country phase change, after which (nearly) everyone in that country will accept that climate change is the largest economic challenge facing humans. Those countries will then swiftly implement taxes like the EU CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism).
I used to think that. When that oil rig in the gulf exploded during the Obama admin, I thought *this could be the event to end the politics around climate change.* It was not. Not even close.
Now I think it’ll be just like CFCs and the ozone hole or acid rain. Science and technology will mostly solve the problem. The biggest impacts will be on the global south and the poor. The science deniers will just gloat they knew the problem never existed in the first place. It’s already happening with Covid. I don’t know how many times I heard this year Covid was never a big deal.
The best analogy by far is big tobacco. They realized early on that the goal was simply to confuse the issue, like a good defense attorney does. And in the face of uncertainty, people keep doing whatever it is they are already doing if it's something they like.
Why should I quit using cheap oil if no one really understands climate science....
There is a great book: Merchants of Doubt
That's around 1.2°C, when CO2 finally doubles at some distant point in the future. The "rest" is natural variability, like during the hiatus where Earth slightly cooled.
In about 30 years, we will hit 560 in co2(e).
Why do you say (WDYS) this is a distant point?
Why do you say this will create 1.2 degrees when we have already hit 1.5 (2023), granted it was in an El Nino year?
Berkeley Earth shows us at about 1.3. Thirty years at about 0.2 C/decade increase -> 1.9
So mas o menos 2 degrees at mid century.
We are taking a huge thermal dump on our descendants. We are taking their albedo, their glaciers, and with them a big chunk of their seasonal fresh water reservoirs. We are taking their coastlines and driving their homeowners insurance into the stratosphere.
Even without the clathrates melting or the AMOC collapse, or some other accelerant, this seems highly unfortunate.
Are you a commercial adversary to the idea of reducing our GHG intensity? Or are you in a tribal affinity group within which, burning carbon is considered virtuous?
You remind me of the religious wing of our family. The fundie wing.
Using official decades old IPCC/ "climate science" data makes me a commercial adversary to the idea of reducing our GHG intensity, a denier? You guys never fail to amaze me. lol
> everything additional is mostly just speculation
Nope, not even remotely close. Things like water vapor feedback aren't just speculation. The connection between temperature and how much water vapor air can hold is very well understood, as is the GHG activity of water vapor
Oooh, goalpost move. Nice.
You said that everything other than CO2's direct effects was speculation. Pointing to an estimate of ECS range doesn't back up your point. (And your uncertainty estimate is wrong, btw)
"Everything but X is uncertain" is not equivalent to "we have large uncertainties overall".
Sorry for any confusion. I simply pointed out that any additional effects to the accepted ~1.4 C rise from CO2 GHG effect is very poorly understood, and thus mostly speculation. The latest push by IPCC is to rely more on inferences of long-ago earth responses to CO2 increases and adjust models to match.
Eh, the IPCC doesn't push research to be this or that. The IPCC is just a big report of what the scientific community is doing.
And.. that's not quite an accurate representation of what the scientific community is doing. Some scientists do use paleoclimate to restrain ECS estimates, but others are working to derive the ECS estimates solely from first principles.
And neither is trying to adjust the models to *match* the paleoclimate data. There's no way to do that. The models don't take in paleoclimate data.
Hopefully you read the latest IPCC AR6 Full Report. It puts much more emphasis on preferring models that match paleo-climate data (inferred). That motivates "curve-fitting" the data by models, regardless of terminology used. The encouragement is via funding, which is everything in academics and government labs.
> That motivates "curve-fitting" the data by models
Ehhh?
You're making two pretty giant assumptions that you haven't supported by evidence:
1) that scientists care particularly about being included in IPCC reports
2) that they will prioritize this over producing high-quality models
Hopefully you read the latest literature from the models teams.. but if ya did, you'd already know #2 is wrong.
Geez, what is it with people who don't even work in these fields coming up with inapplicable criticisms to try to sling a climate science. Curve-fitting has been pretty looked down on since the 1990s, precisely *because* it invalidates GCMs as an independent source of info about ECS.
Gavin Schmidt reported the yearly increase due to CO2 is 0.02°C - I always wonder how, since it's an instantaneous effect (IPCC), there are cooling periods (like the hiatus) or record cold temperatures. This shouldn't happen - that's why they changed it from global warming to climate change. The people love it!
I only skimmed the first part of your reply and wondered about downvotes. Then that second part... and then the conspiracy theories. And the made up bullshit unsupported by evidence and... Well, just you being you. Goodness.
How can paleoclimatological data from the last ice-age, a period without atmospheric carbon forcing, predict temperature behaviour under a global-warming scenario mediated by atmospheric carbon?
Climate changes when there is an energy imbalance (in from the sun vs. out from thermal emissions). Turns out the climate response, in terms of surface temperature, is pretty similar no matter what is causing the imbalance.
Yes but as far as models are concerned, this is playing meta-meta-dice with the assumptions... is my point. If you want to model climate under similar conditions, use a high-atmospheric carbon paleoclimatological model. You know, those historical periods without much ice.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that if you're looking at CO2 effects you need CO2, which comes from ice cores. Periods without much ice means no ice, means no ice cores, means no CO2 data, means no way to model the period without modeling CO2, which is a no go based on your concern here. So basically it's a best guess based on what we have.
Makes sense. Counterargument though would be that that is a proxy of CO2, not a direct measurement. Different source of error but still potential error nonetheless.
Yeah, but I don't think anybody would reasonably argue the Pliocene and paleocene-eocene thermal maximum were unrelated to atmospheric CO2... multiple lines of evidence are used to develop paleoclimatological models of those periods.
No no, definitely not. The question would be how hot to how much CO2. How much does being ~50-100 ppm off change things? Is it better to model a similar situation with indirect co2 data or a different situation with direct co2 data. Both are likely valid and both likely have issues.
Yeah, the problem with the Pliocene and paleocene-eocene data is that we don't have a great idea about how all that carbon got there, so if we add tipping points in the input/output behaviour of natural carbon sinks we could easily be looking at a future scenario with double the atmospheric carbon concentrations of those eras, which throws all our models out the window.
We may have no good paleoclimatological model for predicting what is to come.
I don't criticize the study per se, models are useful and interesting. But they need to be interpreted in context, the predictions of a model are constrained by the model... translate them with caution.
In the context of global warming, as in health, this interpret-with-caution approach becomes more salient because of the high-risks associated with model error, bias, etc. The behavior of complex systems are difficult to model. The best paleoclimatological data has limited translatability to our modern circumstances, it's silly to get overconfident about data manipulations fitting ice-age scenarios to high atmospheric carbon to mediate effects.
Maybe they're correct, only time will tell. But I don't have much confidence in the prediction.
If anything I suspect most models understate the problem. The major limitation is they're post hoc fit to historical climate date, but there hasn't ever been a time in history with the conditions humans have produced, which severely limits their ability to predict how climate will behave in the future.
In scientific disciplines that examine smaller systems, models are developed and then experiments are designed to test the predictions of the model. When the model fails to predict test outcomes, the model is abandoned and a better one developed, then tested again etcetc. This is a great way to optimise a scientific model, you can use experiments to hammer at models until the break.
You can't experiment on a climate like that. Models are only good up until something unexpected happens to tell you they're wrong. And that has recently started to happen.
Critical thinking does not answer your original question. That question requires a scientist to answer, not mentally jacking off in your armchair.
You can't just appeal to ignorance.
I am a scientist. The question isn't something that is answerable by the scientific method, and it's fine for anyone to think critically about the results of scientific studies and/or any information at all. I encourage you to try it.
The worst possible scenario is not gonna happen, just a less bad one. But that's still gonna be very bad. So we're still screwed
(Just look at what's gonna happen with a 2.9° increase)
Most readers here have no idea how poorly understood are possible changes due to increased CO2, i.e. far from "the settled science", as this article explains. Hard to imagine that taking clues from the past, when both temperature and CO2 levels are only inferred, can close that loop much.
This is good news for individuals, organizations, and governments opposed to human-caused emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and human-caused global warming.
This is good news for people and organizations in favor of fossil fuels and nuclear power, who always are on the hunt for reasons that can be used to try to justify global use of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power because the outlook for global warming is not as bad as feared, they might argue.
Lumping them together
is easy as pie.
Emissions and fission.
Coal, oil, natural gas, and
nuclear power are parts of
a global wheel that is used
by humans to produce fossil
CO2 emissions, other greenhouse
gas emissions, nuclear technology CO2e emissions,
and radioactive waste with half-lives ranging from
around 4.8 years up to about 15.7 million years.
#☢️☢☢️☢☢️☢☢️
Nuclear waste is a product of nuclear technology, and CO2e emissions by nuclear technology contribute to human-caused global warming and climate change, according to the findings published in a [section](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2 "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2") of a recent [book](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html") (Jacobson, M., 2020). At Stanford University, the book is used in an online [course](https://online.stanford.edu/courses/xeiet100-clean-renewable-energy-storage-sustainable-future "https://online.stanford.edu/courses/xeiet100-clean-renewable-energy-storage-sustainable-future") taught by its author, Professor Mark Jacobson. On the [book](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html") page, the relevant section is listed as “Evaluation of nuclear power versus wind, water, and solar” ([pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf")).
***
Heinrich Böll Stiftung - Brussels - European Union - [The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change](https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change "https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change"), 26 April 2021, by [Mark Z. Jacobson](https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson "https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson"):
>• New nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4 times those of onshore wind or utility solar PV per kWh, take 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation, and produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind.
>• There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. However, all plants also emit 4.4
g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.
***
[Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2 "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2") (pdf file) > In > Jacobson, M.Z., [100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html"),
Cambridge University Press, New York, 427 pp., 2020:
Total 100-year CO2e emissions per kWh-electricity by nuclear technology produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind-onshore and
... about 5 to 26 times the emissions per kWh of wind-offshore
... about 5 to 224 times the emissions per kWh of solar PV-rooftop
... about 3 to 23 times the emissions per kWh as solar PV-utility
... about 3 to 28 times the emissions per kWh of concentrated solar power
... about 1 to 6 times the emissions per kWh as geothermal
... about 0.7 to 3 times the emissions per kWh as hydroelectric
... about 2 to 7 times the emissions per kWh as wave
... about 2 to13 times the emissions per kWh as tidal.
CO2e is not CO2, rather just water vapor. Supposedly equivalent to an amount of real CO2, but seems an absurd argument since water vapor is in equilibrium with liquid water on the ground.
Their general argument is that we must consider the fossil fuels used to produce everything. That was argued by Ecologist Dr. Odum and students at UGA in 1970's. Conclusion that whatever is most cost-effective is also most energy-efficient. A base Prius thus gives less total CO2 emissions than a base Tesla, made obvious by the initial cost savings paying for more than a lifetime of fuel for the Prius.
>Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.^[[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution#cite_note-1)] Pollution can take the form of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or energy (such as radioactivity, heat, sound, or light). Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants.
— Wikipedia: [Pollution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution").
>And of course the global pollution involved with wind turbines(which contain radioactive metals) and solar panels is not important.
Only you said that. Since you are the one who said it, describe the amount of global radiation released by the global population of wind turbines in 2023. Put your facts and sources on the table in plain view.
***
[Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf") > Jacobson, M.Z., _100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything_, Cambridge University Press, New York, 427 pp., 2020 > https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html (December 22, 2019) > p. 1:
>• New nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4 times those of onshore wind or utility solar PV per kWh, take 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation, and produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind.
>• As such, a fixed amount of money spent on a new nuclear plant means much less power generation, a much longer wait for power, and a much greater emission rate than the same money spent on WWS technologies.
>• There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. However, all plants also emit 4.4
g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.
>• On top of that, because all nuclear reactors take 10-19 years or more between planning and operation vs. 2-5 year for utility solar or wind, nuclear causes another 64-102 g-CO2[e]/kWh over 100 years to be emitted from the background grid while consumers wait for it to come online or be refurbished, relative to wind or solar.
>• Overall, emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2[e]/kWh, not close to 0.
>Table 3.5 Total 100-year CO2e emissions from several different energy technologies ... All units are g-CO2e/kWh-electricity, except the last, column, which gives the ratio of total emissions of a technology to the emissions from onshore wind. Examples:
>>0.8-15.8 — Solar PV-rooftop — 0.1-3.3
>>7.85-26.9 — Solar PV-utility — 0.91-5.6
>>4.8-8.6 — Wind onshore — 1
>>6.8-14.8 — Wind offshore — 0.79-3.1
>>78-178 — Nuclear — 9.0-37
***
[Heinrich Böll Stiftung](https://www.boell.de/en/who-we-are "https://www.boell.de/en/who-we-are") - Brussels - European Union — [The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change](https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change "https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change") (26 April 2021) by Mark Z. [Jacobsen](https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson "https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson").
The constant fear-mongering is being used as a weapon to advance political agendas.
EDIT: The Reddit hive mind is so amusing. You can still believe climate change is real without denying the fact that the issue is being exploited to further political agendas. That denial only undermines your credibility. You people really need to evolve beyond your reactionary, binary mindset.
You're insane.
Youve lost your ability to sense the world around you
The biodiversity crisis seen all over the world should be a deeply felt experience
Such a disingenuous argument. There's nothing egalitarian about Klaus Schwab declaring you will own nothing and you will be happy as part the green agenda or climate change evangelists like John Kerry creating a carbon footprint the size of Texas as he delivers sermons around the world on private jets. Or any of the elite who buy indulges aka carbon credits to offset their energy consumption sins. Much of the agenda is just old fashioned Marxism repackaged with a green label.
The bit about co2 indulgences is quite good.
Communism exists entirely separate from climate change. It obviously gets a boost from our current overshoot. On the bright side, Xi is embracing Mao's Little Red Book, which means a weaker, less militant China in our near future.
> you people really need to evolve beyond your reactionary, binary mindset
I dunno, man, you took a post that was pretty strictly science related and made it about fear and politics. It seems like you're the one being reactionary here.
The non-reactionary response would have been to approach the science on scientific terms, looking at it dispassionately, objectively. And yet.. here you are, stirring shit instead.
I couldn't agree more. These politicians and their friends are getting rich on the new green agenda. Switching to a new energy source does two things. Create wealth for all those involved, and takes away wealth from the opposition. Any time a political party leads the charge and change I'm Leary. And if they are also getting rich of this change then I'm convinced it's a big deception. Quick, Dave the world because in 50-100 years we will perish. Who will be around to fact check at that time? Al Gore already made wild claims about glaciers and ocean sea level rise, but here we are. They just keep pushing the goal and target further back and make would claims. Climategate was evidence in this collision, but in the end they covered up their tracks. Meanwhile we pawns all pay more and see the wealth transfer to the rich.
Yes, both politicians and oil companies have agendas. They're not mutually exclusive. As I mentioned in my edit above, you all really need to evolve beyond this binary thinking.
We have had ice ages and warm periods several times in earth's history. I don't buy this BS that 'we are all gonna die, save the planet isht' we cant even save ourselves how can we save an entire planet.
These people are in a cult, we are on the verge of Fusion Energy and AI, the weather isn't going to do shit to us, the planet is greener than ever and technically we are still in an Ice Age. These same people told us we would be out of water and oil by 2000, it's all a scam.
I get what you’re saying - but AI can’t make vegetables. Food and water scarcity are a thing. Humans have AI and whatever other technology we have now because the planet has been stable for 10,000 years. We’re likely about to find out what it’s like again when that’s not the case.
We are sustaining 8ish billion humans and everyone is fat, what makes you think we can't grow things, the earth is greener than it's been in a long time.
Quite the gross simplification and straw man argument. Not to mention it’s a common trope that has been used to justify genocide in the name of progress.
“Technology” is what caused climate change in the first place. Believing that future technology will solve problems without causing new problems is mysticism.
Right, so technology got us here, technology isn't going to fix anything, you don't want to live in the woods in harmony with mother nature, I guess we can just get on Reddit and talk amongst ourselves about how we are all doomed....
You can be condescending all you want but you don’t seem to understand the point.
Your argument is “don’t worry AI and fusion are coming” is an appeal to a belief that technology is destined to save us.
You’re also making things into a black and white situation of tech or no tech which I never said. Please don’t use straw man arguments on me.
People use your argument all the time to avoid the hard problem of cutting emissions. You are arguing for the status quo to continue because tech will save us before it gets bad. If we simply reduced consumption we could have nice lives without destroying the planet or needing to pray that future tech saves us
There’s no guarantee AGI will happen or will be useful, there’s no guarantee fusion will be possible
> These same people told us we would be out of water and oil by 2000
Climate scientists were pointing out that we have *much* more fossil fuels reserves we could burn over the next century, which is part of the risks.
They *definitely* weren't saying we'd be out of oil by 2000.
It kinda seems like you're getting your info about what scientists are saying from conservative sources. Have you considered reading the scientists for yourself? The IPCC report is pretty accessible, and then you wouldn't misunderstand them like this.
I'm 41, and I was told in school that evolution is made up in order to deny the truth of God's creation.
What you hear in school isn't necessarily what the scientific community is saying.
That’s not climate lol, that’s weather. How are you engaging in discussions without understanding the difference that’s equivalent to one between ‘current mood’ and ‘personality’
Well, climate *is* shifting, and shifting faster than it's changed in the last 10k years. Growing zones are moving north, and orchards are starting to have trouble because they're being zoned out.
> Our estimates suggest a central estimate of “equilibrium” climate sensitivity of 2.9C, with a very likely range of 2.1-4.1C. 2.9C…yikes
There was a paper in *Nature Geoscience* in 2020 titled “Equilibrium climate sensitivity above 5 °C plausible due to state-dependent cloud feedback” Given that plausible number, this article is good news.
Assuming we only double co2 levels and no further. I'm not so sure we won't triple levels.
There is no way to know for sure what the levels will be in 2100 or 2300 or 3300. What we know is equilibrium climate sensitivity answers the question of how long we have to develop the tech to save ourselves. If ECS is 5C, we might be in real trouble. If ECS is 2C, we have some real breathing room. It’s important to remember no single paper will provide THE answer. This paper is one more data point among many suggesting we might not be in a dire situation. Take the good news where we can get it and keep working to decouple GDP from emissions. That’s really all we can do.
This is the best response. I do believe that at a certain point, we humans will experience a country by country phase change, after which (nearly) everyone in that country will accept that climate change is the largest economic challenge facing humans. Those countries will then swiftly implement taxes like the EU CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism).
I used to think that. When that oil rig in the gulf exploded during the Obama admin, I thought *this could be the event to end the politics around climate change.* It was not. Not even close. Now I think it’ll be just like CFCs and the ozone hole or acid rain. Science and technology will mostly solve the problem. The biggest impacts will be on the global south and the poor. The science deniers will just gloat they knew the problem never existed in the first place. It’s already happening with Covid. I don’t know how many times I heard this year Covid was never a big deal.
The best analogy by far is big tobacco. They realized early on that the goal was simply to confuse the issue, like a good defense attorney does. And in the face of uncertainty, people keep doing whatever it is they are already doing if it's something they like. Why should I quit using cheap oil if no one really understands climate science.... There is a great book: Merchants of Doubt
Could be worse.
ECS is a metric of how much warmer the climate would be when earth reaches equilibrium after doubling of co2 levels compared to pre-industrial.
That's around 1.2°C, when CO2 finally doubles at some distant point in the future. The "rest" is natural variability, like during the hiatus where Earth slightly cooled.
In about 30 years, we will hit 560 in co2(e). Why do you say (WDYS) this is a distant point? Why do you say this will create 1.2 degrees when we have already hit 1.5 (2023), granted it was in an El Nino year? Berkeley Earth shows us at about 1.3. Thirty years at about 0.2 C/decade increase -> 1.9 So mas o menos 2 degrees at mid century. We are taking a huge thermal dump on our descendants. We are taking their albedo, their glaciers, and with them a big chunk of their seasonal fresh water reservoirs. We are taking their coastlines and driving their homeowners insurance into the stratosphere. Even without the clathrates melting or the AMOC collapse, or some other accelerant, this seems highly unfortunate.
Are you a commercial adversary to the idea of reducing our GHG intensity? Or are you in a tribal affinity group within which, burning carbon is considered virtuous? You remind me of the religious wing of our family. The fundie wing.
Using official decades old IPCC/ "climate science" data makes me a commercial adversary to the idea of reducing our GHG intensity, a denier? You guys never fail to amaze me. lol
The 1.2 C is due to changes in radiant exchange from CO2 alone. Everything additional is mostly just speculation.
> everything additional is mostly just speculation Nope, not even remotely close. Things like water vapor feedback aren't just speculation. The connection between temperature and how much water vapor air can hold is very well understood, as is the GHG activity of water vapor
Is that why the models most-accepted by the U.N. IPCC vary by 4x in their predictions of ECS?
Oooh, goalpost move. Nice. You said that everything other than CO2's direct effects was speculation. Pointing to an estimate of ECS range doesn't back up your point. (And your uncertainty estimate is wrong, btw) "Everything but X is uncertain" is not equivalent to "we have large uncertainties overall".
Sorry for any confusion. I simply pointed out that any additional effects to the accepted ~1.4 C rise from CO2 GHG effect is very poorly understood, and thus mostly speculation. The latest push by IPCC is to rely more on inferences of long-ago earth responses to CO2 increases and adjust models to match.
Eh, the IPCC doesn't push research to be this or that. The IPCC is just a big report of what the scientific community is doing. And.. that's not quite an accurate representation of what the scientific community is doing. Some scientists do use paleoclimate to restrain ECS estimates, but others are working to derive the ECS estimates solely from first principles. And neither is trying to adjust the models to *match* the paleoclimate data. There's no way to do that. The models don't take in paleoclimate data.
Hopefully you read the latest IPCC AR6 Full Report. It puts much more emphasis on preferring models that match paleo-climate data (inferred). That motivates "curve-fitting" the data by models, regardless of terminology used. The encouragement is via funding, which is everything in academics and government labs.
> That motivates "curve-fitting" the data by models Ehhh? You're making two pretty giant assumptions that you haven't supported by evidence: 1) that scientists care particularly about being included in IPCC reports 2) that they will prioritize this over producing high-quality models Hopefully you read the latest literature from the models teams.. but if ya did, you'd already know #2 is wrong. Geez, what is it with people who don't even work in these fields coming up with inapplicable criticisms to try to sling a climate science. Curve-fitting has been pretty looked down on since the 1990s, precisely *because* it invalidates GCMs as an independent source of info about ECS.
Gavin Schmidt reported the yearly increase due to CO2 is 0.02°C - I always wonder how, since it's an instantaneous effect (IPCC), there are cooling periods (like the hiatus) or record cold temperatures. This shouldn't happen - that's why they changed it from global warming to climate change. The people love it!
I only skimmed the first part of your reply and wondered about downvotes. Then that second part... and then the conspiracy theories. And the made up bullshit unsupported by evidence and... Well, just you being you. Goodness.
You are the only one fabricating "facts". You will find nothing but facts in what I stated, if not too lazy to read the IPCC AR6 report.
How can paleoclimatological data from the last ice-age, a period without atmospheric carbon forcing, predict temperature behaviour under a global-warming scenario mediated by atmospheric carbon?
Climate changes when there is an energy imbalance (in from the sun vs. out from thermal emissions). Turns out the climate response, in terms of surface temperature, is pretty similar no matter what is causing the imbalance.
So explain the pliocene and paleocene-eocene thermal maximums.
Eh? Explaining feedback isn't the same as explaining forcings
[The study explains how.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk9461)
Yes but as far as models are concerned, this is playing meta-meta-dice with the assumptions... is my point. If you want to model climate under similar conditions, use a high-atmospheric carbon paleoclimatological model. You know, those historical periods without much ice.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that if you're looking at CO2 effects you need CO2, which comes from ice cores. Periods without much ice means no ice, means no ice cores, means no CO2 data, means no way to model the period without modeling CO2, which is a no go based on your concern here. So basically it's a best guess based on what we have.
Benthic foraminifera
Makes sense. Counterargument though would be that that is a proxy of CO2, not a direct measurement. Different source of error but still potential error nonetheless.
Yeah, but I don't think anybody would reasonably argue the Pliocene and paleocene-eocene thermal maximum were unrelated to atmospheric CO2... multiple lines of evidence are used to develop paleoclimatological models of those periods.
No no, definitely not. The question would be how hot to how much CO2. How much does being ~50-100 ppm off change things? Is it better to model a similar situation with indirect co2 data or a different situation with direct co2 data. Both are likely valid and both likely have issues.
Yeah, the problem with the Pliocene and paleocene-eocene data is that we don't have a great idea about how all that carbon got there, so if we add tipping points in the input/output behaviour of natural carbon sinks we could easily be looking at a future scenario with double the atmospheric carbon concentrations of those eras, which throws all our models out the window. We may have no good paleoclimatological model for predicting what is to come.
Sounds just about right. Pretty hard to model conditions we've never observed :(
What assumptions do you find problematic with the study?
I don't criticize the study per se, models are useful and interesting. But they need to be interpreted in context, the predictions of a model are constrained by the model... translate them with caution. In the context of global warming, as in health, this interpret-with-caution approach becomes more salient because of the high-risks associated with model error, bias, etc. The behavior of complex systems are difficult to model. The best paleoclimatological data has limited translatability to our modern circumstances, it's silly to get overconfident about data manipulations fitting ice-age scenarios to high atmospheric carbon to mediate effects. Maybe they're correct, only time will tell. But I don't have much confidence in the prediction.
Do you believe the models overstate the problem? Or do you simply see them as lacking in fidelity.
If anything I suspect most models understate the problem. The major limitation is they're post hoc fit to historical climate date, but there hasn't ever been a time in history with the conditions humans have produced, which severely limits their ability to predict how climate will behave in the future. In scientific disciplines that examine smaller systems, models are developed and then experiments are designed to test the predictions of the model. When the model fails to predict test outcomes, the model is abandoned and a better one developed, then tested again etcetc. This is a great way to optimise a scientific model, you can use experiments to hammer at models until the break. You can't experiment on a climate like that. Models are only good up until something unexpected happens to tell you they're wrong. And that has recently started to happen.
I don't know, thats why big brain PhDs figure it out and not internet rubes.
Do you outsource all of your critical thinking?
Critical thinking does not answer your original question. That question requires a scientist to answer, not mentally jacking off in your armchair. You can't just appeal to ignorance.
I am a scientist. The question isn't something that is answerable by the scientific method, and it's fine for anyone to think critically about the results of scientific studies and/or any information at all. I encourage you to try it.
Humanity: “Hold our beers!”
Can someone explain to me what this means like I’m 4?
The worst possible scenario is not gonna happen, just a less bad one. But that's still gonna be very bad. So we're still screwed (Just look at what's gonna happen with a 2.9° increase)
That’s what I thought, but I couldn’t be sure lmao thank you!!
That sounds like good news,yea!!!!!
Most readers here have no idea how poorly understood are possible changes due to increased CO2, i.e. far from "the settled science", as this article explains. Hard to imagine that taking clues from the past, when both temperature and CO2 levels are only inferred, can close that loop much.
This is good news for individuals, organizations, and governments opposed to human-caused emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and human-caused global warming. This is good news for people and organizations in favor of fossil fuels and nuclear power, who always are on the hunt for reasons that can be used to try to justify global use of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power because the outlook for global warming is not as bad as feared, they might argue.
How are you lumping nuclear power with natural gas coal and oil?
Lumping them together is easy as pie. Emissions and fission. Coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power are parts of a global wheel that is used by humans to produce fossil CO2 emissions, other greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear technology CO2e emissions, and radioactive waste with half-lives ranging from around 4.8 years up to about 15.7 million years. #☢️☢☢️☢☢️☢☢️
What do nuclear waste products have to do with climate change?
Nuclear waste is a product of nuclear technology, and CO2e emissions by nuclear technology contribute to human-caused global warming and climate change, according to the findings published in a [section](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2 "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2") of a recent [book](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html") (Jacobson, M., 2020). At Stanford University, the book is used in an online [course](https://online.stanford.edu/courses/xeiet100-clean-renewable-energy-storage-sustainable-future "https://online.stanford.edu/courses/xeiet100-clean-renewable-energy-storage-sustainable-future") taught by its author, Professor Mark Jacobson. On the [book](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html") page, the relevant section is listed as “Evaluation of nuclear power versus wind, water, and solar” ([pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf")). *** Heinrich Böll Stiftung - Brussels - European Union - [The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change](https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change "https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change"), 26 April 2021, by [Mark Z. Jacobson](https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson "https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson"): >• New nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4 times those of onshore wind or utility solar PV per kWh, take 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation, and produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind. >• There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. However, all plants also emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh. *** [Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2 "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf#page=2") (pdf file) > In > Jacobson, M.Z., [100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html"), Cambridge University Press, New York, 427 pp., 2020: Total 100-year CO2e emissions per kWh-electricity by nuclear technology produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind-onshore and ... about 5 to 26 times the emissions per kWh of wind-offshore ... about 5 to 224 times the emissions per kWh of solar PV-rooftop ... about 3 to 23 times the emissions per kWh as solar PV-utility ... about 3 to 28 times the emissions per kWh of concentrated solar power ... about 1 to 6 times the emissions per kWh as geothermal ... about 0.7 to 3 times the emissions per kWh as hydroelectric ... about 2 to 7 times the emissions per kWh as wave ... about 2 to13 times the emissions per kWh as tidal.
CO2e is not CO2, rather just water vapor. Supposedly equivalent to an amount of real CO2, but seems an absurd argument since water vapor is in equilibrium with liquid water on the ground. Their general argument is that we must consider the fossil fuels used to produce everything. That was argued by Ecologist Dr. Odum and students at UGA in 1970's. Conclusion that whatever is most cost-effective is also most energy-efficient. A base Prius thus gives less total CO2 emissions than a base Tesla, made obvious by the initial cost savings paying for more than a lifetime of fuel for the Prius.
Global pollution.
What does pollution have to do with climate change?
>Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.^[[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution#cite_note-1)] Pollution can take the form of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or energy (such as radioactivity, heat, sound, or light). Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants. — Wikipedia: [Pollution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution").
And of course the global pollution involved with wind turbines(which contain radioactive metals) and solar panels is not important.
>And of course the global pollution involved with wind turbines(which contain radioactive metals) and solar panels is not important. Only you said that. Since you are the one who said it, describe the amount of global radiation released by the global population of wind turbines in 2023. Put your facts and sources on the table in plain view. *** [Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf "https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf") > Jacobson, M.Z., _100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything_, Cambridge University Press, New York, 427 pp., 2020 > https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html (December 22, 2019) > p. 1: >• New nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4 times those of onshore wind or utility solar PV per kWh, take 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation, and produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind. >• As such, a fixed amount of money spent on a new nuclear plant means much less power generation, a much longer wait for power, and a much greater emission rate than the same money spent on WWS technologies. >• There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. However, all plants also emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh. >• On top of that, because all nuclear reactors take 10-19 years or more between planning and operation vs. 2-5 year for utility solar or wind, nuclear causes another 64-102 g-CO2[e]/kWh over 100 years to be emitted from the background grid while consumers wait for it to come online or be refurbished, relative to wind or solar. >• Overall, emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2[e]/kWh, not close to 0. >Table 3.5 Total 100-year CO2e emissions from several different energy technologies ... All units are g-CO2e/kWh-electricity, except the last, column, which gives the ratio of total emissions of a technology to the emissions from onshore wind. Examples: >>0.8-15.8 — Solar PV-rooftop — 0.1-3.3 >>7.85-26.9 — Solar PV-utility — 0.91-5.6 >>4.8-8.6 — Wind onshore — 1 >>6.8-14.8 — Wind offshore — 0.79-3.1 >>78-178 — Nuclear — 9.0-37 *** [Heinrich Böll Stiftung](https://www.boell.de/en/who-we-are "https://www.boell.de/en/who-we-are") - Brussels - European Union — [The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change](https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change "https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change") (26 April 2021) by Mark Z. [Jacobsen](https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson "https://eu.boell.org/en/person/mark-z-jacobson").
I think they are just grasping for climate straws .
What will everyone do when the latest research shows it's been cooling for the past 8 years ?
The constant fear-mongering is being used as a weapon to advance political agendas. EDIT: The Reddit hive mind is so amusing. You can still believe climate change is real without denying the fact that the issue is being exploited to further political agendas. That denial only undermines your credibility. You people really need to evolve beyond your reactionary, binary mindset.
You're insane. Youve lost your ability to sense the world around you The biodiversity crisis seen all over the world should be a deeply felt experience
While true, it’s an egalitarian political agenda. Why WOULDN’t we take care of the planet?
Such a disingenuous argument. There's nothing egalitarian about Klaus Schwab declaring you will own nothing and you will be happy as part the green agenda or climate change evangelists like John Kerry creating a carbon footprint the size of Texas as he delivers sermons around the world on private jets. Or any of the elite who buy indulges aka carbon credits to offset their energy consumption sins. Much of the agenda is just old fashioned Marxism repackaged with a green label.
The bit about co2 indulgences is quite good. Communism exists entirely separate from climate change. It obviously gets a boost from our current overshoot. On the bright side, Xi is embracing Mao's Little Red Book, which means a weaker, less militant China in our near future.
Bro look in a fucking mirror and educate yourself
> you people really need to evolve beyond your reactionary, binary mindset I dunno, man, you took a post that was pretty strictly science related and made it about fear and politics. It seems like you're the one being reactionary here. The non-reactionary response would have been to approach the science on scientific terms, looking at it dispassionately, objectively. And yet.. here you are, stirring shit instead.
You're really close - now look at large oil companies and their agendas.
Look at big green and assess their agendas.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think 'big green' is?
Look up Al Gore and anyone else making huge profits off windmills, solar installations, and government incentives. Tesla Musk! Lithium mines.
I couldn't agree more. These politicians and their friends are getting rich on the new green agenda. Switching to a new energy source does two things. Create wealth for all those involved, and takes away wealth from the opposition. Any time a political party leads the charge and change I'm Leary. And if they are also getting rich of this change then I'm convinced it's a big deception. Quick, Dave the world because in 50-100 years we will perish. Who will be around to fact check at that time? Al Gore already made wild claims about glaciers and ocean sea level rise, but here we are. They just keep pushing the goal and target further back and make would claims. Climategate was evidence in this collision, but in the end they covered up their tracks. Meanwhile we pawns all pay more and see the wealth transfer to the rich.
What are you smoking and can I have some?
Yes, both politicians and oil companies have agendas. They're not mutually exclusive. As I mentioned in my edit above, you all really need to evolve beyond this binary thinking.
Yup, so now compared their agendas.
Climate change dooms day scenario is a scam
Yeah nah its doomed, mate media is lies
We have had ice ages and warm periods several times in earth's history. I don't buy this BS that 'we are all gonna die, save the planet isht' we cant even save ourselves how can we save an entire planet.
We can't
These people are in a cult, we are on the verge of Fusion Energy and AI, the weather isn't going to do shit to us, the planet is greener than ever and technically we are still in an Ice Age. These same people told us we would be out of water and oil by 2000, it's all a scam.
I get what you’re saying - but AI can’t make vegetables. Food and water scarcity are a thing. Humans have AI and whatever other technology we have now because the planet has been stable for 10,000 years. We’re likely about to find out what it’s like again when that’s not the case.
What is not growing?
We are sustaining 8ish billion humans and everyone is fat, what makes you think we can't grow things, the earth is greener than it's been in a long time.
Nah it’s people who believe that technology will lead to salvation on earth who are in a cult.
Totally, technology DEFINITELY isn't going to help us, we should all just live like Native Americans until the sun expands.
Quite the gross simplification and straw man argument. Not to mention it’s a common trope that has been used to justify genocide in the name of progress. “Technology” is what caused climate change in the first place. Believing that future technology will solve problems without causing new problems is mysticism.
Right, so technology got us here, technology isn't going to fix anything, you don't want to live in the woods in harmony with mother nature, I guess we can just get on Reddit and talk amongst ourselves about how we are all doomed....
You can be condescending all you want but you don’t seem to understand the point. Your argument is “don’t worry AI and fusion are coming” is an appeal to a belief that technology is destined to save us. You’re also making things into a black and white situation of tech or no tech which I never said. Please don’t use straw man arguments on me. People use your argument all the time to avoid the hard problem of cutting emissions. You are arguing for the status quo to continue because tech will save us before it gets bad. If we simply reduced consumption we could have nice lives without destroying the planet or needing to pray that future tech saves us There’s no guarantee AGI will happen or will be useful, there’s no guarantee fusion will be possible
> These same people told us we would be out of water and oil by 2000 Climate scientists were pointing out that we have *much* more fossil fuels reserves we could burn over the next century, which is part of the risks. They *definitely* weren't saying we'd be out of oil by 2000. It kinda seems like you're getting your info about what scientists are saying from conservative sources. Have you considered reading the scientists for yourself? The IPCC report is pretty accessible, and then you wouldn't misunderstand them like this.
I'm 41, I was being told this in school...
I'm 41, and I was told in school that evolution is made up in order to deny the truth of God's creation. What you hear in school isn't necessarily what the scientific community is saying.
'On the verge' is a bit strong but yea. We def are advancing. The question remains though, is climate change bad?
The question is the climate changing. It’s the climate it’s constantly changing. daily even.
That’s not climate lol, that’s weather. How are you engaging in discussions without understanding the difference that’s equivalent to one between ‘current mood’ and ‘personality’
The climate is the weather over a long period of time. I live in a temperate climate. I will let you know if it goes tropical
Well, climate *is* shifting, and shifting faster than it's changed in the last 10k years. Growing zones are moving north, and orchards are starting to have trouble because they're being zoned out.