Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Shadowferal]

You have to be a gullible retard to keep buying into this shit

And what are you for ignoring the hundreds dead due to changing weather patterns?

[Ryom]

Why so? That’s pretty much when disposable consumer culture took off. Only a handful of countries were properly industrialised prior to WW2.

Well the use of fossil fuels began in the 19th century, and became widespread globally after WW2 - that's still two decades before the seventies. Of course the measurable effect on the climate comes with a delay, but damage was already done. And pollution was especially bad in the earlier years of industrialization.

Humanity also engaged in some other unsustainable activities even earlier, like mass deforestation, hunting species to extinction, overfishing etc, though those are probably minor problems in comparison.

[cubby]

They've been saying that shit since there fucking 1950's and they the caps would melt by the the 1970's. Yet the same people making these claims for the past 70 years are still buying beach front property. You have to be a gullible retard to keep buying into this shit

Right? All that science and data and refining models and changing industrial output. It's almost like climate change science isn't exact, but has been right from the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

And what are you for ignoring the hundreds dead due to changing weather patterns?

I don't know how they would quantify deaths to changing weather patterns and severe weather occurrences, but it sure seems like there are more of them over the past year. Lagos, Nigeria is slowly sliding into the water as well.

[Jessicka]

Well the use of fossil fuels began in the 19th century, and became widespread globally after WW2 - that's still two decades before the seventies. Of course the measurable effect on the climate comes with a delay, but damage was already done. And pollution was especially bad in the earlier years of industrialization.

Humanity also engaged in some other unsustainable activities even earlier, like mass deforestation, hunting species to extinction, overfishing etc, though those are probably minor problems in comparison.

Of course, there are observable effects of things like the colonisation of the Americas that are visible in climate records, but the graph is talking about a tipping point between sustainable existence, not the point of irreversible climate change (Which probably hit around 2010). It's not to say the Industrial revolution didn't put us on a questionable path, just that it was fairly limited in where it was happening until after WW2.

[Ryom]

Of course, there are observable effects of things like the colonisation of the Americas that are visible in climate records, but the graph is talking about a tipping point between sustainable existence, not the point of irreversible climate change (Which probably hit around 2010). It's not to say the Industrial revolution didn't put us on a questionable path, just that it was fairly limited in where it was happening until after WW2.

Maybe I should have been clearer.

Using a million years worth of fossil fuels in a matter of decades is not sustainable.
Continuously emitting more CO2 then the environment can reabsorb and thus raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not sustainable.
Causing so much pollution that the ecosystem suffers long-term damage is not sustainable.
Overfishing to the point of depleting fish populations is not sustainable.
All of this happened throughout the 20th century.

So, I don't know how exactly they calculate this, or how they add up the massive local differences, but it seems kind of silly to me to say the way humanity was living in 1970 was still ecologically acceptable, like this graph implies.

[Jessicka]

Maybe I should have been clearer.

Using a million years worth of fossil fuels in a matter of decades is not sustainable.
Continuously emitting more CO2 then the environment can reabsorb and thus raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not sustainable.
Causing so much pollution that the ecosystem suffers long-term damage is not sustainable.
Overfishing to the point of depleting fish populations is not sustainable.
All of this happened throughout the 20th century.

So, I don't know how exactly they calculate this, or how they add up the massive local differences, but it seems kind of silly to me to say the way humanity was living in 1970 was still ecologically acceptable, like this graph implies.

Maybe it's me not being clear, but to use some archaic terminology - for the reason it was used back then - In the Industrialised West is absolutely wasn't even close, then the 'East' which was still largely agrarian until the second world war it wasn't great either but much less impactful; finally the 'Third', or 'Two Thirds' world was still largely subsistence, or agrarian at best.

Also, again, this graph isn't a climate change/CO2 graph - those are clear since about 1880 we were in for a shit show - it's an overall sustainable resource graph, so includes cutting down trees at a rate slower than they could be regrown, digging up sand/cement faster than it's deposited, and so on. It is a bit off in terms of going through specifics we were never sustainably mining coal or anything else for that matter, but as a gross general figure it does make a point.

[cubby]

Interesting article about a Scotland facility being built - will capture as much carbon as 40M trees.

Envelope math: 3.04 trillion trees in the world (currently - thanks Brazil!). 75,000 of these facilities would double our carbon capture ability. Unrealistic, but something to think about in the overall goal of course correcting our imminent climate collapse.

[Jessicka]

Interesting article about a Scotland facility being built - will capture as much carbon as 40M trees.

Envelope math: 3.04 trillion trees in the world (currently - thanks Brazil!). 75,000 of these facilities would double our carbon capture ability. Unrealistic, but something to think about in the overall goal of course correcting our imminent climate collapse.

Not only are those numbers poor, it's entirely unproven tech and decades down the line if it is viable. It's the kind of shit that gets promoted so companies and governments can pretend to be doing something and put some numbers in their calculations to avoid doing what they need to.

Here's a more realistic evaluation of Carbon Capture.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_alternatives

[cubby]

Not only are those numbers poor, it's entirely unproven tech and decades down the line if it is viable. It's the kind of shit that gets promoted so companies and governments can pretend to be doing something and put some numbers in their calculations to avoid doing what they need to.

Here's a more realistic evaluation of Carbon Capture.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_alternatives

The article says the capture is technically possible now, and the facility will be up and running by 2026. So not decades, at all.

However, I do agree with you that this is the kind of thing, like individual recycling, that governments point towards to avoid taking any responsibility.

[Shadowferal]

I like trees...

[Ryom]

Maybe it's me not being clear, but to use some archaic terminology - for the reason it was used back then - In the Industrialised West is absolutely wasn't even close, then the 'East' which was still largely agrarian until the second world war it wasn't great either but much less impactful; finally the 'Third', or 'Two Thirds' world was still largely subsistence, or agrarian at best.

But it doesn't matter that only a fraction of the world's population caused this problem if they contributed enough to fuck it up for everyone. Which they did, systematic measurements for CO2 concentration started in the late fifties and it was already on the rise.

Also, again, this graph isn't a climate change/CO2 graph - those are clear since about 1880 we were in for a shit show - it's an overall sustainable resource graph, so includes cutting down trees at a rate slower than they could be regrown, digging up sand/cement faster than it's deposited, and so on. It is a bit off in terms of going through specifics we were never sustainably mining coal or anything else for that matter, but as a gross general figure it does make a point.

I'm aware this graph isn't just about CO2, I mean I just listed several other examples, but those are mostly local, whereas fossil fuels and subsequently CO2 emissions have global consequences and are by far the biggest problem.
The authors don't seem to disagree there, from the website:

Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. We maintain this deficit by liquidating stocks of ecological resources and accumulating waste, primarily carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So it seems rather misleading that a time when we were relying on limited ressources and when emissions were already large enough to affect the atmosphere (in addition to all the local issues) is still presented as sustainable, because it clearly wasn't.

[Draco-Onis]

The article says the capture is technically possible now, and the facility will be up and running by 2026. So not decades, at all.

However, I do agree with you that this is the kind of thing, like individual recycling, that governments point towards to avoid taking any responsibility.

The problem is there's no financial incentives for companies to implement carbon capture, until governments penalize and push for zero emission and regulation on manufacturing pollutants like plastic nothing will change.

[Glorious Leader]

The good news is: this statement is 100% accurate. The bad news is: one of the BIGGEST reasons we will stop polluting so much is that the human population of the earth will be less than a million, and a million people just can't put out so much pollution. The earth will recover and life will go on.

Eventually the people left will rediscover mathematics and geometry and eventually calculus and physics and once again human knowledge will advance.

You have a way of making things seem SO HOPELESS.

A canticle for liebowitz

[cubby]

The problem is there's no financial incentives for companies to implement carbon capture, until governments penalize and push for zero emission and regulation on manufacturing pollutants like plastic nothing will change.

First of all, to be clear, I agree.

However, we are seeing some governments and companies shifting away from carbon pollution and towards carbon neutral production. Not enough, of course, but at least some are doing it, without any significant government incentives/penalties/pressures.

[Draco-Onis]

First of all, to be clear, I agree.

However, we are seeing some governments and companies shifting away from carbon pollution and towards carbon neutral production. Not enough, of course, but at least some are doing it, without any significant government incentives/penalties/pressures.

I think we are way past the point of waiting for them to do it voluntarily.

[cubby]

I think we are way past the point of waiting for them to do it voluntarily.

Possibly - I mean, generally speaking we are, because for the most part they haven't. The problem is that we're light years away from massive world-wide legislation (I mean being passed by each government, but by lots of governments) to curtail those corporations.

Maybe after Florida sinks into the ocean we'll have the Democratic majority enough to pass comprehensive environmental legislation. But what about China? And Africa? And Asia?

[Draco-Onis]

Possibly - I mean, generally speaking we are, because for the most part they haven't. The problem is that we're light years away from massive world-wide legislation (I mean being passed by each government, but by lots of governments) to curtail those corporations.

Maybe after Florida sinks into the ocean we'll have the Democratic majority enough to pass comprehensive environmental legislation. But what about China? And Africa? And Asia?

Per capita we are responsible for a great deal of emissions and a lot of corporations that manufacture world wide fall under our purview. China is a more complicated story but they would have to follow our lead if only to save face, there are programs we can introduce to entice third world countries into green energy. The sad part is though none of this is going to happen even if Florida sinks into the ocean senators will still be in the pockets of big oil as is the rest of our government.

The fossil fuel industry and other pollutant lobbies have way too much power and influence to ever be phased out or regulated. Even worse as COVID-19 has demonstrated the human can't come together even in times of crisis we are literally throwing away vaccines for political reasons while people are dying because of it. As much as I hate to sound like PC2, the only hope the human race has is that technology and our ingenuity saves us from our stupidity. There will be billions of deaths due to this all the while rich executives roll in money.

[Jessicka]

The article says the capture is technically possible now, and the facility will be up and running by 2026. So not decades, at all.

However, I do agree with you that this is the kind of thing, like individual recycling, that governments point towards to avoid taking any responsibility.

It's nothing more than a proof of concept right now, when you consider the necessary scales. And yet, it's being touted as a means towards maintaining the status quo, and that it'll be ready at those scales any time soon.

But it doesn't matter that only a fraction of the world's population caused this problem if they contributed enough to fuck it up for everyone. Which they did, systematic measurements for CO2 concentration started in the late fifties and it was already on the rise.


I'm aware this graph isn't just about CO2, I mean I just listed several other examples, but those are mostly local, whereas fossil fuels and subsequently CO2 emissions have global consequences and are by far the biggest problem.
The authors don't seem to disagree there, from the website:

So it seems rather misleading that a time when we were relying on limited ressources and when emissions were already large enough to affect the atmosphere (in addition to all the local issues) is still presented as sustainable, because it clearly wasn't.

I think this graph probably explains my point better.



Pre-war, that top bracket was much smaller, and even more constrained higher up. Ultimately though, there is a difference between 'the point we fucked up the climate', and 'the point we set out building and expanding all resource use beyond what the planet could sustain'. The latter would have happened regardless of the climate issue; and like the deaths of millions from pollution is just yet another reason to clean things up.

[Omega10]

Per capita we are responsible for a great deal of emissions and a lot of corporations that manufacture world wide fall under our purview. China is a more complicated story but they would have to follow our lead if only to save face, there are programs we can introduce to entice third world countries into green energy. The sad part is though none of this is going to happen even if Florida sinks into the ocean senators will still be in the pockets of big oil as is the rest of our government.

The fossil fuel industry and other pollutant lobbies have way too much power and influence to ever be phased out or regulated. Even worse as COVID-19 has demonstrated the human can't come together even in times of crisis we are literally throwing away vaccines for political reasons while people are dying because of it. As much as I hate to sound like PC2, the only hope the human race has is that technology and our ingenuity saves us from our stupidity. There will be billions of deaths due to this all the while rich executives roll in money.

The population of the earth right now is what somewhere around 7.7 billion? I think the number of billions that will die will be a bit more than 7.5. At that point, things will start to normalize and new living patterns will replace the ones that are not working so well now.

[PC2]

The population of the earth right now is what somewhere around 7.7 billion? I think the number of billions that will die will be a bit more than 7.5. At that point, things will start to normalize and new living patterns will replace the ones that are not working so well now.

The population will probably go up to 8 billion, then 8.5 billion, then 9 billion over the decades. There's no reason to think the population will go down overall because of climate change. Science certainly doesn't say that will happen. People are confusing the ecosystem with civilization. It's pretty easy for one to decline while the other goes up. Although we're getting better at preserving the environment while still growing the economy, so neither has to keep declining over the long run. A win-win scenario is possible.