Climate science (and environmental science generally) is indeed a kind of escape from the underlying issues, from underlying causes.
The issue is not the climate, not fossil fuel, not greenhouse gases. In fact, electrification and other proposed "solutions" to such problems will *accelerate,* not curtail, the ecocide.
The scientific community is as trapped in the predicament as the wider public. No one is able to articulate a path to humans doing less.
I thought temperature rises are baked in because the higher CO2 levels form a kind of blanket over the globe that takes a long time to dissipate - not because the oceans absorb the heat and then … reverse the heat flow back out of them?
Btw Andreas Malm and Wim Carton’s “Overshoot” about the stupid CO2 budget overshoot choice is good. We only pick a round number and future round date - both completely arbitrary, really - in order to keep partying while pretending we are decent human beings. History will judge us harshly.
If we stop emitting today (ludicrous thought!), CO2 levels would start decreasing because the access CO2 will slowly dissolve in the deep ocean. Deep ocean mixing time is about 1000 years.
The correct question is "What is the current available number when we will stop?" Based on that, we have a 50% chance of overrunning 3ºC, based on how long it will take us to do effective climate control. 1.5 has a 0% chance. If we don't want that we have to make changes, which I am sure you already know.
On the upside upside, the United States. will start using SI rather than OS.
Climate science (and environmental science generally) is indeed a kind of escape from the underlying issues, from underlying causes.
The issue is not the climate, not fossil fuel, not greenhouse gases. In fact, electrification and other proposed "solutions" to such problems will *accelerate,* not curtail, the ecocide.
The scientific community is as trapped in the predicament as the wider public. No one is able to articulate a path to humans doing less.
I thought temperature rises are baked in because the higher CO2 levels form a kind of blanket over the globe that takes a long time to dissipate - not because the oceans absorb the heat and then … reverse the heat flow back out of them?
Btw Andreas Malm and Wim Carton’s “Overshoot” about the stupid CO2 budget overshoot choice is good. We only pick a round number and future round date - both completely arbitrary, really - in order to keep partying while pretending we are decent human beings. History will judge us harshly.
If we stop emitting today (ludicrous thought!), CO2 levels would start decreasing because the access CO2 will slowly dissolve in the deep ocean. Deep ocean mixing time is about 1000 years.
The thing about Carton and Malm (both former Lund colleagues) is that they mostly publish in academic journals. We did not say anything other than Wim here: https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368 but coordinated that with media outlets, so it had a measurably bigger impact. But still not anywhere enough.
Nothing is enough, evidently!
Thanks: I think I've read that a while back. I used the carbon budget picture in one of my posts, actually (tho I think I found it elsewhere).
Good to have you on Substack.
The correct question is "What is the current available number when we will stop?" Based on that, we have a 50% chance of overrunning 3ºC, based on how long it will take us to do effective climate control. 1.5 has a 0% chance. If we don't want that we have to make changes, which I am sure you already know.
On the upside upside, the United States. will start using SI rather than OS.
Continue the good work.
Your rough estimate makes perfect sense. To see what's coming, you need 90% common sense, and 10% general knowledge of climate science.