Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

baddfingerz1968 t1_jdjezud wrote

Reply to comment by BroomShakzuka in There Is Still Plenty We Can Do to Slow Climate Change by nastratin

I'm still doing what I can, which really isn't a whole lot as a conservationist consumer when you look at the big picture.

I was researching the climate crisis over 32 years ago in college when it was still this rough concept called global warming. I really hate saying this, but...it's too late.

Maybe we can mitigate and delay it some, but the time to act was over a century ago. And the uber wealthy that own the industries and everything else, who are in bed with the politicians, knew damn well where this was all headed.

That's the real problem, we cannot overcome our selfishness and greed. It's in our nature.

9

grundar t1_jdk6202 wrote

> I really hate saying this, but...it's too late.

“too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science."

(That's a quote from one of the main authors of an earlier IPCC report.)

It's too late to avoid a 1C temperature increase (since that already happened a few years ago), but it's not too late to avoid 2C of warming. In fact, IEA projections are for emissions to fall 15-20% by 2030, putting us on the second-lowest IPCC pathway and in line for an estimated 1.8C of warming.

There's been enormous progress in the last 5 years; the most pessimistic science-based projection from today is lower than the most optimistic one from 5 years ago.

26

baddfingerz1968 t1_jdk7s89 wrote

We have almost reached the first critical 1.5C increase in global average temp. What you interpret as pessimistic is what us realists call "the world has hardly done shit," even after warning became more and more grave from the 1970's onward. My answers to this "enormous progress" you speak of can be found all over the Net too, in articles and data that contradict your claims.

This is as optimistic as it gets:

Time is almost up

But I am still not buying it. The only thing that man is good at is destruction.

0

grundar t1_jdl1y0i wrote

> We have almost reached the first critical 1.5C increase in global average temp.

What makes it "critical"?

Per this paper in Science there are no tipping points under 200 years and 4C of warming, so there's no clear evidence that 1.5C is any more important of a threshold than 1.4C or 1.6C.

1.5C is important because humans like round numbers, not for any physical reasons.

> What you interpret as pessimistic is what us realists call "the world has hardly done shit,"

Up until 5-10 years ago, yes. If you haven't paid attention to recent changes, I can see how you might have an outdated view of the situation.

Let's look at the data:

First, the IEA WEO projects a 20% emissions decline by 2030. That's using the mid-range scenario ("APS"), since clean energy progressed much faster than even their most optimistic scenario from 5 years ago, and their mid-range scenarios have in general been the closest for fossil fuels.

Second, coal consumption has been flat for a decade; with renewables accounting for virtually all net new power generation and over 100% of additional power generation expected by 2030, coal use is highly likely to decline in the near future (IEA's scenario has a 20% reduction by 2030).

Third, oil-burning car sales peaked 5 years ago and are in permanent decline. Per their analysis, EVs will become a majority of light vehicle sales around 2030, resulting in a permanent decline in oil consumption (peaking around 2024 and declining 5-10% by 2030).

Fourth, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has pushed Europe hard away from gas, and as a result gas is projected to decline 10% by 2030. Gas use doesn't have the strong structural headwinds of cheap renewables and EVs that are basically guaranteeing coal and oil declines, though, so this decline is less locked-in.

Fifth, clean energy investment is 2x fossil fuel investment, meaning the energy industry has heavily shifted towards clean energy.

Fundamentally, the transition to a renewables-dominant electrical grid and an EV-dominant car market is already in progress. The logistics of those two transitions are already pretty much baked in, meaning the significant declines in fossil fuel use they will cause are also pretty much baked in. It will take time to see those declines, but only because the world's power generation system and light vehicle fleet are so large that replacing them will take decades.

> But I am still not buying it.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter if you do. The logistics of these transformations are already in place, and as a result they're pretty much unstoppable at this point.

20

SpiritualTwo5256 t1_jdm0e69 wrote

The problem with all of this is that the grid has to be transformed. To add in hundreds of millions of cars to the grid is going to break most of them. I expect that many of the grids will require voltage changes. Going from 120 in the states to 220-240. Otherwise we will have to adapt millions of transformers for higher loads. We will need billions of miles of new power lines and infrastructure to handle the new loads everywhere. And it all has to be done in the next 20 years.

3

OriginalCompetitive t1_jdmcj26 wrote

20% of new cars sold in California are EVs. So far it’s been pretty smooth. In Norway it’s 80% EV. No major breaking points have been identified so far.

6

grundar t1_jdmx2sd wrote

> The problem with all of this is that the grid has to be transformed.

Yes, and that will be an enormous amount of effort, both to replace generation and to upgrade transmission.

At the same time, though, maintaining the existing grid is also an enormous amount of work. A large fraction of the power infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced by 2050 anyway, and the existing grid relies on enormous effort to extract hundreds of millions of tons of coal and gas every year.

"It will be a lot of effort" is true of anything to do with the overall grid, so it's not a useful argument against any particular proposal -- there is no easy option.

> To add in hundreds of millions of cars to the grid is going to break most of them.

“A future grid will absolutely be able to handle a future demand of transportation electrification.”

In fact, since EV charging has such flexible timing, it's a great option for easily integrating larger amounts of variable renewables such as wind and solar via time-of-use pricing (this article goes into more detail).

> I expect that many of the grids will require voltage changes. Going from 120 in the states to 220-240. Otherwise we will have to adapt millions of transformers for higher loads.

How would that help?

Changing home voltage from 120v to 240v is unlikely to do anything to help the grid, as the higher-voltage transmission lines would carry the same amount of energy (and current) either way. Running more transmission lines where needed is almost certainly a better option, and it's one the industry is already very familiar with deploying to address increased consumption.

6

SpiritualTwo5256 t1_jdqjc00 wrote

Higher voltage allows more wattage. It’s the amps that create the heat which makes things fry.
And if we don’t have nuclear as a base load carrier, we will need most cars connected to the grid during the day and especially a commute times. The duck curve sucks!

1

grundar t1_jdr9dkj wrote

> > Changing home voltage from 120v to 240v is unlikely to do anything to help the grid, as the higher-voltage transmission lines would carry the same amount of energy (and current) either way.
>
> Higher voltage allows more wattage. It’s the amps that create the heat which makes things fry.

Sure, but changing homes from 120v to 240v does nothing to lessen the amperage being carried by the high-voltage transmission lines, and those are where the grid is constrained.

2

Alpha3031 t1_jdqm51m wrote

Actually, in the US least-cost pathways with adequate transmission capacity show much less deployment of diurnal storage (about half), solar and nuclear compared to the scenario where transmission is constrained. Sufficient transmission capacity to minimise cost is about 2 to 3 times current levels (compared with up to about 20% increase for constrained), and results in close to double the deployed wind substituting for the ~30% decrease in solar.

1

SpiritualTwo5256 t1_jdly45z wrote

No tipping points under 4C? ROFL 🤣 I swear some people haven’t taken a basic differential calculus class. Even a part of the time at higher levels means part of the effects happen. It doesn’t happen all at once when we reach the NumberC. Oh and the effect of carbon in the atmosphere is expected to last 200 years. So, anything even remotely close to 1-4C in the next 500 years is going to have an increasing feedback loop.

1

OriginalCompetitive t1_jdmc584 wrote

Do you understand what a tipping point is? It’s a permanent change that can’t be reversed - ie, the “it’s too late” claim. So what’s your evidence that there are climate changes that can’t be reversed if we move from 1.5 to 1.6?

9

grundar t1_jdmljf3 wrote

> No tipping points under 4C?

None with a timescale under 200 years, according to this paper published in Science.

If you feel the editors of Science have made an error in publishing that paper, you are free to take it up with them.

> the effect of carbon in the atmosphere is expected to last 200 years.

Sure, but other feedback mechanisms will tend to sequester it, and as a result warming will stop shortly after emissions stop.

The scientific consensus is that stopping emissions is enough to stop warming. The scenarios on p.13-14 of the IPCC report show clearly that warming stops shortly after net zero emissions are reached, and temperatures will decline after a period of net negative emissions (as in SSP1-1.9).

I recognize that some of these findings may be counterintuitive to you, but that just highlights how complex science is and how important it is to pay attention to the experts rather than our gut feelings.

4

vhutever t1_jdny7ma wrote

Warming WILL NOT STOP when emissions stop. Thus everything you have stated previously about the future is on track to slow emissions cannot be trusted.

2

grundar t1_jdoib2z wrote

> > The scenarios on p.13-14 of the IPCC report show clearly that warming stops shortly after net zero emissions are reached
>
> Warming WILL NOT STOP when emissions stop.

The climate scientists who wrote the IPCC report appear to disagree with you.

Do you have evidence that they are wrong? Or is that just your feeling on the matter?

1

vhutever t1_jdoj2dq wrote

Your link is not from the IPCC. It’s from a 2021 article from carbon tracker.org which a financial think tank. The other thing you posted literally does not say once emissions are stopped warming will stop. There is a lag in emissions and warming. You can find the evidence yourself I’m not here to do homework for you.

1

grundar t1_jdorcv9 wrote

> Your link is not from the IPCC.

The link I directed you to is indeed from the IPCC. I'll repeat it for you with the link included a second time for your convenience:
>> The scientific consensus is that stopping emissions is enough to stop warming. The scenarios on p.13-14 of the IPCC report show clearly that warming stops shortly after net zero emissions are reached

Note the domain: www.ipcc.ch

If you click the link I've given you twice now, you will see that it is indeed the IPCC WGI report, and you will see that the chart on p.13 and table on p.14 demonstrate that warming is indeed predicted to stop (and reverse) after net emissions turn negative for SSP1-1.9.

> a 2021 article from carbon tracker.org which a financial think tank.

You appear to be confused, as the other net zero link I posted goes to carbonbrief.org, and not "carbontracker.org", whatever that is. carbonbrief.org/about-us/ shows that the link I actually gave has a ton of climate and environmental scientists on its staff.

Feel free to head directly to the scientific papers cited in that article if you prefer primary sources; for example this paper from 2008, this paper from 2010, or this paper from 2020 concluding that warming will stop at net zero emissions.

As a point of interest, I'd never heard of "carbontracker.org" before you mentioned it, but I agree with you that it seems like a probable misinformation source.

> You can find the evidence yourself

I have, and I've linked it for you.

5

snikZero t1_jduqibw wrote

The (b) table doesn't seem to show a reduction in temperatures even under the most optimistic case.

SSP1-1.9 shows the total observed temperature increasing (the lighter part of the bar), something like +0.4°C. The darker part is warming to date.

The two optimistic scenarios describe net zero by 2050, followed by net negative emissions into 2081-2100.

 

However your general point that warming can still be managed is likely correct.

1

grundar t1_jdw5bsu wrote

> The (b) table doesn't seem to show a reduction in temperatures even under the most optimistic case.

The (b) table is looking at the change relative to the late 1800s.

For change relative to other periods, look at p.14, Table SPM.1, Scenario SSP1-1.9, Best Estimate:

  • Near term (2021-2040): 1.5C
  • Mid-term (2041-2060): 1.6C
  • Long term (2081-2100): 1.4C
    i.e., 0.2C estimated temperature decrease between mid-term and long term intervals.

Note that SSP1-1.9 reaches net zero CO2 in ~2057 (p.13, Figure SPM.4), so the end of the mid-term interval. In other words, 20-40 years of increasingly net negative CO2 emissions are projected to result in 0.2C lower temperatures.

1

snikZero t1_jdwf4fd wrote

Ah, you are correct. This isn't clear from the table on P13, the 'total warming' note underneath makes that ambiguous.

I would note though that SSP1-2.6 also describes a net zero by 2050 followed by negative emissions, but still sees a temperature increase by 2100.

2

grundar t1_jdwhh1x wrote

> I would note though that SSP1-2.6 also describes a net zero by 2050

SSP1-2.6 doesn't reach net zero until 2075 (p.13), so it has significant net positive cumulative emissions between 2050 and 2090 (the 2041-2060 and 2081-2100 intervals).

3

snikZero t1_jdwka51 wrote

I think you're looking at the CO2 output only graph, i suspect perhaps in aggregate they provide net zero for 2050.

In P12 Box SPM.1.1, and P14 note 25 (explicitly), both state net zero for that date.

It's also possible the graph doesn't align to the notes due to an error.

1

grundar t1_jdx1ggj wrote

> In P12 Box SPM.1.1, and P14 note 25 (explicitly), both state net zero for that date.

I believe you're misreading; from p.12 Box SPM.1.1:
>> "scenarios with very low and low GHG emissions and CO2 emissions declining to net zero around or after 2050, followed by varying levels of net negative CO2 emissions23 (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6), as illustrated in Figure SPM.4."

Both are net zero around or after 2050.

Similarly for p.14 Note 25:
>> "SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 are scenarios that start in 2015 and have very low and low GHG emissions, respectively, and CO2 emissions declining to net zero around or after 2050, followed by varying levels of net negative CO2 emissions."

Both locations clearly note that the scenario may reach net zero after 2050.

> I think you're looking at the CO2 output only graph, i suspect perhaps in aggregate they provide net zero for 2050.

None of the other GHG graphs reach net zero even by 2100, so net zero GHG emissions always occurs after net zero CO2 emissions.

3

snikZero t1_jdxqzsf wrote

You make good points. I considered that the increase in aerosols for that projection might have influenced the net-zero date, but I see from the 1900's comparison graphs that they have a lesser relative effect.

2

goizn_mi t1_jdp0oh9 wrote

>What makes it "critical"?

So is 4c the positive feedback loop trap?

1

baddfingerz1968 t1_jdl7kl7 wrote

It's OK. We are all dealing with this most monumental struggle that mankind will ever face in our own ways. I hope you are right...but I have nearly accepted this terrible fate because deep down inside I really believe you are not.

I have been preparing for this for over half a lifetime. I cannot struggle against it any longer along with the other very serious issues I have had to survive for over 30 years. Unfortunately I brought a child into this world in 1990 before I learned of how serious the impending climate catastrophe was, and now I must accept that she could have children, and her children's children will have to bear this terrible burden as survival becomes nearly intolerable for most life on the planet.

Do not despair or be ridden with guilt. Even if you remove the human element from the equation, all the terrible ways we have abused our only home, this is way bigger and more certain than anything we could have done to ultimately deter it.

Peace be with you.

−1

grundar t1_jdmuayp wrote

> Unfortunately I brought a child into this world in 1990 before I learned of how serious the impending climate catastrophe was, and now I must accept that she could have children, and her children's children will have to bear this terrible burden as survival becomes nearly intolerable for most life on the planet.

You're carrying around way more guilt and anxiety about the situation than is supported by the science.

Take a look at the data in those links above. The world has changed. The consensus of science-based estimates is that the world will see about 2C of warming, leaving it far from the "intolerable for most life" scenario you fear.

Climate change is real, and will cause quite a lot of suffering for quite a lot of people, but the science-based projections for our future are very different than they were 20, 10, or even just 5 years ago, and for the better. If you tuned out in the past due to a lack of progress, now's a good time to tune back in and update your views in light of new and very different data.

7

OriginalCompetitive t1_jdmbmbr wrote

For someone who really hates saying it, you seem to get a lot of enjoyment out of saying it.

3

ArBui t1_jdn6u0z wrote

Y'all just ignored what he showed, literally ignoring the IPCC scientists themselves who you use the work of to push your doomerism.

1

BroomShakzuka t1_jdjoby2 wrote

I agree unfortunately. Gotta do what we can though

4

mwebster745 t1_jdkpo8r wrote

I have to do everything I can, my 3 year old daughter is going to be here in 2100. This is absolutely her future. Those people who don't care can be discouraging, but we have to try

9

BroomShakzuka t1_jdl8yhu wrote

Same. I've got a child in progress and we've already nicknamed her "sorry", because of the shitty situation she'll be facing because of human greed.

In terms of discouraging people: my wife and i have gone vegan and are feeling great and enjoying so many good foods, but even suggesting to others that they should try the same gets us so much hate while the freaking carbon footprint of a vegan is nearly twice as low of carnists. I might even get downvotes on this comment, because here comes the preachy vegan. All i want is for us to live in harmony and my unborn child not to have to grow up with massive problems. Sorry not sorry i guess.

2

mwebster745 t1_jdn5jh9 wrote

I was on a thread talking about the water crisis in the west and agriculture. Suggest that we should grow less cow food and eat a meal or two less of beef a week, you'd think you were asking them to give up their left leg. Not like it's going to be an option much longer, can only grow so much food with so much water, and I doubt this 'drought' isn't just the new climate for the next few hundred years until a responsible generation can finish a draw down process

2

BroomShakzuka t1_jdptfmo wrote

We need radical change, but most people I know have not even made a slight change. And the crazy thing is that some of these sacrifices are so tiny compared to the luxury they are drowning in.

I once asked some people whether they would go to a vegan eco friendly 5 star resort or a normal 5 star resort if they would get all expenses paid. Most people i asked said that they feared that they would not enjoy the food in the vegan resort. Even when i told them they would get world class food in both resorts most still chose the normal resort.

On this sub you see regularly posts about lab grown meat. It is absolutely horrific to see how many people respond to that that they will only make the change if it is cheaper and just as tasty. Not a single sacrifice in their comfortable lives shall be given. In the mean time let's blame ther governments and big corporates of course.

Unfortunately we deserve what's coming to us 🤷‍♂️

1

Alpha3031 t1_jdqox8n wrote

I mean, sure, cutting back on meat is great (and tbh for budget reasons alone...) and it's kinda nice to have something incremental to work on where every step has the same effect instead of all or nothing, it's less stressful IMO. But how many Americans would you have to convince to cut meat by 30, 50 or 100% to reduce emissions by 1 Gt CO2e? Or even 200 Mt? Versus how many it might take to swing a national election? (Scale as necessary if working with a smaller country) Government action is essential too, and if that action cuts emissions in sectors that are easier to cut that just means we get things lower sooner.

1

BroomShakzuka t1_jdstlj4 wrote

I am not sure. Individual change needs to go hand in hand with systemic change. Individuals are also infecting other individuals, so there is a lot of theory that we won't have to convince everyone before a massive shift in our system can happen. Having 10% of the population go vegan would already be a massive unstoppable movement. Anyway, fact still remains that I dont know, but I can't just continue participating in the bullshit that we do to animals and subsequently the world .

1

SpiritualTwo5256 t1_jdm10vt wrote

The next 7 to 14 generations are going to look back at us, our parents and our grand parents as either saviors or backwards evil idiots!

0

mwebster745 t1_jdn698k wrote

In human history this is going to be a critical period for millennia, well moreso than the bronze age or the like. The only mass extinction we will hopefully ever endure as a species, and one we caused to ourselves. It will be remembered like the KT impact millions of years ago.

1

SpiritualTwo5256 t1_jdlxcsn wrote

I am with you! We are way too late to stop the feedback loops that will ultimately doom a substantial number of species, but we still have a chance to undo some of it if we are willing to not only end human carbon and methane emissions but invest in 7-15 trillion dollar last minute plans to cool the planet with a Texas sized solar shade between the sun and moon at the L1 Lagrange point.
Anything less than that and I don’t think our great grand kids will forgive us.

−1