10 Years After a Breakthrough Climate Pact, Here’s Where We Are

Emissions are still rising, but not as fast as they were. — SophistiCat

Or to put it another way, despite 40 years of warnings and analysis and many developments of alternative energy sources, we haven't even stopped increasing the rate at which we are make things worse, never mind starting to decrease it. We are still getting further away from net zero, and at the same time and in addition, carbon sinks are collapsing, and becoming carbon sources.

And of course even reaching net zero, if we live long enough to start heading that way, will not stop climate change for many centuries afterwards.

The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. Other than that there will be bumps in the road not a a collapse of civilisation. — I like sushi

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion? It seems to there's to much uncertainty of what all the consequence could to be to make such definite statements with any confidence.

I think the effects of climate change on bio-diversity for instance might be a very serious problem going forward, not just for the loss of the intrinsic value we might attribute to it, but as something that civilisation tacitly relies on.

A potential globewide famine is kind of serious. Biospheres being wipedout is not ideal, but nature would recover faster than I imagine human civilisation would in the event of widespread famine.

I've just learnt over time that when it comes to scientific analysis in the public sphere it is always hyperbolic. When it comes to actual human atrocities on other humans it is usually underplayed.

A potential globewide famine is kind of serious. — I like sushi

It is serious, but I can see solutions to that... there's ways to adapt and produce even more, in more resilient and sustainable ways.

Biospheres being wipedout is not ideal, but nature would recover faster than I imagine human civilisation would in the event of widespread famine. — I like sushi

Yes as long as you have enough of it left, it could recover quite quick. But biospheres rely on enough bio-diversity as a kind of network to keep itself going. If you go below certain thresholds of bio-diversity the whole network could collapse, and then we're talking millions of years to recover.

It is serious, but I can see solutions to that... — ChatteringMonkey

We have no food. You have food > War. Planning ahead would be nice and there are schemes in place already to try and diversify. I doubt it woudl be truly global tbh, but I can see some nations losing out if farming became unpredictable for several staple crops in just one season.

If you go below certain thresholds of bio-diversity the whole network could collapse, and then we're talking millions of years to recover. — ChatteringMonkey

This is hyperbole.

We have no food. You have food > War. Planning ahead would be nice and there are schemes in place already to try and diversify. I doubt it woudl be truly global tbh, but I can see some nations losing out if farming became unpredictable for several staple crops in just one season. — I like sushi

Yes some countries rely on imports for a lot of their needs already, and it is hard to see how some places would still be viable for agriculture if we get another couple of degrees of warming and more irregular weather.

This is hyperbole. — I like sushi

It's not hyperbole, but a possibility... I don't know what the chances are, but the speed at which we are changing the climate, together with other factors of course (like just taking over ecosystems for ourselves), could result in the kind of mass-extinction that would take millions of years to recover from. Maybe it wouldn't take millions of years to have something good enough for civilisation to be viable, but it would take a while let's say.

Anyway the more important point is I think that we really don't know what the consequences will be. We have crude models that point to a couple degrees of warming, but how certain changes (like say the amoc-collapse, burning down of forests, loss of ice-caps, acidification of the oceans etc etc) will amplify changes or not, is unclear I think.

That is nto goign to happen. I think some of the scaremongering is finally coming to an end.

The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. Other than that there will be bumps in the road not a a collapse of civilisation.
7 hours ago

Well I’m not in a position to argue with that. The unpredictability is off the chart, all we have is modelling and a long list of factors which will to a greater or lesser degree increase CO2 levels. There are some things which we can be certain of and there is a baked in reluctance in humanity to not make the necessary changes. To bury our heads in the sand and just carry on as before.

We know for a fact that there are tipping points which will accelerate the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, on top of what we add ourselves. Such as methane from the permafrost, which is melting as we speak. Or acidification of the oceans which will reduce the amount of carbon captured in the oceans, a major carbon sink. We know that sea levels are rising, it’s a slow process, I know (about 3mm a year at the moment), but something which could accelerate and certainly can’t be stopped. It can rise by 90 metres meaning that the majority of larger cities will by then be under water.

Then there is the stupidity of humanity, getting involved in more wars and producing more and more failed states. This might wipe us out before the famine etc does.

The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. — I like sushi

No. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

There are several “serious threats” which, if you cared to learn about, you would understand. The loss of biodiversity is serious, hardly “hyperbole” (as if you’re an authority on that), and has been extensively researched and documented. Among many others.

Why people continue to make such ignorant comments is beyond me. I doubt you’d see it in a physics or chemistry thread. Yet here we are.

It's not hyperbole, but a possibility... I don't know what the chances are, but the speed at which we are changing the climate, together with other factors of course (like just taking over ecosystems for ourselves), could result in the kind of mass-extinction that would take millions of years to recover from. — ChatteringMonkey

A mass extinction is an event in which there's a breakdown in a biosphere's ability to support life. I don't think there is any reason to believe that kind of event is likely due to global warming.

Anyway the more important point is I think that we really don't know what the consequences will be. We have crude models that point to a couple degrees of warming, but how certain changes (like say the amoc-collapse, burning down of forests, loss of ice-caps, acidification of the oceans etc etc) will amplify changes or not, is unclear I think. — ChatteringMonkey

There should be a large spike in the global temperatures that will last for a couple of thousand years, then a long ramp down as the CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. Civilization has never faced that kind of volatility. I'm guessing that cultures that remain high-tech will adapt and ride it out. I could see some areas regressing culturally. In other words, I don't think the human species is going to go through this as a global community. The present global scene might disappear.

It's not hyperbole, but a possibility... I don't know what the chances are, but the speed at which we are changing the climate, together with other factors of course (like just taking over ecosystems for ourselves), could result in the kind of mass-extinction that would take millions of years to recover from. — ChatteringMonkey

You’re absolutely right.

A ten second Google search:

Biodiversity loss and climate change are critically serious, interconnected crises that are worsening each other and threatening human health, well-being, and the planet's stability. Both have catastrophic potential: global animal populations have declined by 69% since 1970, and species are disappearing at rates 10 to 100 times faster than the natural background rate. Climate change exacerbates this loss through extreme weather, habitat destruction, and ocean warming, while biodiversity loss weakens ecosystems' ability to regulate the climate and provide essential services.

What we’re doing to insects in particular is striking. It’s not all due to climate change, of course — but it’s a very serious issue that is exacerbated by it.

But it’s best to listen to Internet trolls when they tell you not to worry. Their vibes have never been wrong.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion? It seems to there's to much uncertainty of what all the consequence could to be to make such definite statements with any confidence. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this. But the failure of climate models to-date (and Antarctic ice recession) gives me hope.

50 year old climate model remarkably accurate, disproving claims about older models being wrong.

Common climate denial arguments: “models are unreliable.”

Climate science, like other sciences, really separate out — very quickly — those who have done their homework and those who haven’t. You just can’t bullshit your way through physics like you can freshman philosophy. Likewise, going with one’s feelings about climate models, climate impacts, the causes of global warming, etc., just doesn’t cut it. There actually are right answers to these questions.

Other than that there will be bumps in the road not a a collapse of civilisation. — I like sushi

A lot of really bad things can happen, short of civilizational collapse. For example, Bangladesh faces exceptionally severe consequences from climate change due to its unfortunate combination of geography and high population density. This densely-populated nation is predominantly a low-lying delta, making it acutely susceptible to sea-level rise, which threatens to permanently inundate vast coastal areas and push saline water inland, contaminating freshwater and soil. Exacerbating this risk is its location on the Bay of Bengal, a "funnel" that intensifies tropical cyclones, leading to catastrophic storm surges and increasing the frequency of devastating riverine flooding. This environmental fragility is amplified by the country's immense population density, where millions of people are dependent on climate-sensitive livelihoods like agriculture and fishing. Consequently, climate impacts directly translate into massive food and water insecurity, large-scale displacement, and mounting humanitarian and economic crises, making Bangladesh one of the most climate-vulnerable nations globally.

Already, the unfortunate Rohinga refugees, largely displaced from their homelands in Bengal, subsist by their thousands in miserable squalor on the fringes of Myanmar, wracked by civil war. So what happens if another 30 or 40 million Bangladeshis are displaced by these catastrophes in an adjacent region?

It may not be global civllisational collapse, but for those millions involved, it might as well be.

I said this:

I've just learnt over time that when it comes to scientific analysis in the public sphere it is always hyperbolic. When it comes to actual human atrocities on other humans it is usually underplayed. — I like sushi

Someone followed up with an example of such hyperbole.

My original point was that the main concern I have is with predictable weather causing huge disruptions to food supplies and widespread famine > and the other horsemen too if severe enough.

It all started with this:

Don’t forget when the tropics become uninhabitable. — Punshhh

Which is hyperbole.

FIN bye