IPCC Report

[hojo-e]

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

The summary for policymakers presents the main findings of the report, based on an assessment of all available scientific, technical and socio-economic research.

It compares the impact of global warming of 1.5C and 2C.

[BRUTE]

tl;dr?

[fiby41]

tl;dr?

In the long run we are all ded.

[vexed87]

tl;dr?

3 page outline:
https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session44/ ... e_sr15.pdf

Even shorter version:

The IPCC report claims we have 12 years to limit the increase in average temp by 1.5 C, it's feasible if we act immediately*.
The impacts of an increase in 2 degrees will be an order of magnitude worse than 1.5 degrees, therefore meeting a ceiling of 1.5 degrees should be considered an imperative. 2 or more degrees should be considered extremely dangerous.

Nothing new here, but the tone of reporting on inaction in the media seems to be getting much more grim. There also seems to be more acknowledgement that growth is incompatible with action to reverse and halt emissions.

*Report doesn't incorporate potential for tipping points/runaway climate change or effects of mass migration, and still assumes technology and resources we don't currently have at our disposal will manifest just as needed.

[EdithKeeler]

This from the WaPo piece about it did give me pause:

The IPCC is considered the definitive source on the state of climate science, but it also tends to be conservative in its conclusions. That’s because it is driven by a consensus-finding process, and its results are the product of not only science, but negotiation with governments over its precise language.

In Sunday’s report, the body detailed the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the changes that would be required to hold warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but it held back from taking a specific stand on the feasibility of meeting such an ambitious goal. (An early draft had cited a “very high risk” of warming exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius; that language is now gone, even if the basic message is still easily inferred.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-e ... bow&wpmm=1

[Seppia]

Well, we may be in a very dangerous situation, but at least we know we have the needed competent politicians in place to swiftly and objectively deal with the issue.

[Dream of Freedom]

Seppia

[jacob]

@brute -

• Assessment reports normally only come out every 7 years (the last one was in 2014) but it was extraordinarily decided to put this 1.5C version out because by 2021, talking about 1.5C would have been more of a historical survey similar to how it's only of historical interest to talk about 1C now.
• The carbon budget(*) for 1.5C is practically already used up. However, if humans immediately cease all economic activity, there's a very good chance that the world just might avoid hitting it when nature cashes it in. This means eliminating things like power production (electricity, heating, water services, reading this post on a computer screen or on paper for that matter), transportation (driving, flying, the moving of goods), and eating (modern agricultural practices)... right now, immediately, definitely not 5 years from now. Yes, this was an actual suggestion!
• Other than an immediate cease and desist of the world economy, the report also suggests another pathway: First, reduce emissions and therefore economic activity by about 50% by 2030. (That means the global markets would engage in an annual loss of -5.6% courtesy of increased taxes on emissions. This should be pretty easy for politicians to sell to investors and consumers seeing as it's in their best interest. I mean they want their children and perhaps their children's children to live reasonably long lives, right?
• After 2030, reductions should continue so that emissions are completely eliminated by 2050.
• While the world economy goes into a permanent decline, engineers and technologists will have the career opportunity of their (increasingly shorter) lives by inventing a mass implementation of carbon capture. There's room for both biologists and industrial/chemical engineers. This is to suck out and sequester the carbon we'll be emitting instead of following the much simpler plan (mentioned above) of just stopping all emissions by Friday this week, which---I mention again---is at least theoretically possible, so there's still hope. Fortunately, humans have already constructed a few pilot plants that work. Now they only need to proceed at mass scale.
• Having thus implemented this sequestration the size of the current global power industry by securing the funding from politicians in a world economy that's still crashing down, humans will be able to enjoy an equitable---most will be organic subsistence farmers and what can be more equitable than that---but unsure existence thanks to melting glaciers (loss of water supplies), ongoing wildfires, slowly rising seas (up to 20ft over the next few hundred years, mostly from the WAIS, thus taking out many major cities), and occasional famines at a scale that's rather much worse than today.
• We can also just continue business as usual because there's a 20-40 year lag effect (explained below). For example, I'll be able to access my IRA tax free in 16 years, so there's some incentive for people my age to kick this can down the road for as long as possible.
• There's some recognition by now just how dangerous that is in terms of tipping points. That is, scientists are beginning to quantity the danger of the nonlinearities. Right now, humans are the most significant forcing factor but if these processes are triggered then arctic albedo, loss of the amazon carbon sink, or methane emissions might exceed what humans are doing. That's like nature stealing your furniture (see below) credit card and maxing it out so much you can't pay it back. This process could run pretty fast (decades) and there's no known stable temperature state between the Holocene (0C) and what's called the "hot house" (of 5-6C). When scientists say dangerous, they'er not referring to how Hurricane Sandy is dangerous, but that the climate might completely flip and become uninhabitable to humans. Maybe the next report (AR6) will come up with a more awesome word than dangerous. I suggest craptacular.

(*) As is well-known?!... there's lag between emission and impact of some 20-40 years, so 1.5C would materialize a few decades from now based on emissions we commit now. Same reason why 1C came about because of how we lived in the 1980s. It's called a budget so that nincompoop politicians can think of emissions as a metaphorical loan with no interest and no payments for the next 20-40 years, similar to how they buy their furniture.

[Seppia]

That sounds... not great
What is your prediction as to how this will actually play out?

[jacob]

I'll semi-arbitrarily guesstimate the chance of a successful turnaround to be based on how many days this remains the top headline in the news divided by 30 days. Here's a tracker: https://www.memeorandum.com/
So if it's one day, I say 1/30 or a 3% chance for a material change away from business as usual. 2 days is 6% and so on...

For comparison, the Kavanaugh nomination completely dominated the news cycle for some 7-9 days.

[ThisDinosaur]

Regarding carbon sequestration, why hasn't oceanic iron fertilization taken off? Couldn't similar fertilization efforts be used to increase carbon absorption into the biosphere?

[ThisDinosaur]

Also, are you aware of any concrete timelines of human-centric effects anywhere?

(Ex, "2085: Atlanta becomes beachfront property. 2115:Farmable range of wheat moves north 15deg in north America. 2130:Great Lakes subsume Detroit......")

[Seppia]

Thanks Jacob.

[jacob]

@Seppia - I guess we already have the answer (0.12%). After about 3 hours, it is no longer the headline issue. The proposed plan would cost $2.4T per year (the rough price tag of building 200 aircraft carriers per year and essentially proceeding to sink them into the sea. Other than providing jobs, there's no present economic benefit to sequestering carbon---it's not going to make anyone's life any better right now or by next quarter). The current global GDP is something like $75-80T and current global military spending is something like $1.7T. It's technically affordable and technologically possible but so is creating a base on the moon hosting 1 million people within the next ten years.

The preference is to let the future pay the price.

@TD - Because dumping iron into the oceans is currently illegal and it wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. According to the wikipedia the forcing from a maximum implementation is -0.3W/m^2. Current forcing from the emissions we've put up over the past couple of centuries is +2.4W/m^2. The biological solution would take some yet to be invented magic. But it might very well be a better way to go than the mechanical solution.

Yes, I'm aware of a range timelines of human impacts in many different places. However, when it comes to discussing them in public (with non-self-selected people), it's my experience that 90-95% of everybody shut off/shut it out or [understandably] commence in some kind of Kuebler-Ross inspired exercise (denial followed by anger followed by negotiation, etc.). However, some of this information is getting out and getting priced in the actual market which is highly inefficient.

It's non-trivial to create a quick guide. Most studies look at only one factor at a time while ignoring all others. That's not really practical. For example, for a given area, one might be looking at a map of sea levels and figure out that the area is safe until 2060 but then be unaware that the same site will be compromised by droughts or wildfires come 2040, and so on. This also has different relevance to different people. For example, you might be 43 years old like me and thus discount sea levels past the years 2050 because by that point you'll have abandoned your beach front property to the sea and moved into a retirement home with A/C in order to avoid perishing by heat stroke(*). OTOH, if you just had children, you might not want to settle in that sea-side community for the same reason, as they would be scheduled to die in 2090 instead---and thus be more concerned at other issues e.g. at that time temps would be closer to 3C and so they'd be worried about the food supply situation and thus stay closer to areas where food is still grown such as the upper midwest while enacting ordinance laws to keep out the refugees from Florida, Oklahoma, and so on...

This is a very complicated kind of clusterfuck. Interesting times! I'm morbidly curious to see it but I won't live long enough.

(*) Unless of course they forget to pay the electric bill or the local utility plant shuts off because the cooling water from the river got too warm. Like what happened in France in 2003, whoops! So you might want to think about that too. Or not. Ignorance is bliss.

[cmonkey]

We're already seeing the beginnings of it and @jacob you'll certainly live long enough to see moderate effects if they are right about the effects being pulled up to 2040.

The most difficult part of this, from my perspective, is maintaining some semblance of benefit from civilization while staying safe from the mass exodus coming from the coasts and fire/drought effected areas. The surface area of the planet that supports a decent human existence (clean water, enough food, etc...) is going to shrink dramatically and population pressure will exacerbate this even more.

[Seppia]

After about 3 hours, it is no longer the headline issue.

yup.
the first version of my above post was "thanks jacob. So we're screwed"

It's very revealing that nobody seems to care, but I guess the reason is the same reason why investors react to quarterly earnings like it's the most important stuff.
The majority of people seem so focused on the short term it's incredible.

I guess in some way I should be thankful as I always choose the proverbial "hen tomorrow", which has served me well both in real life and career.

[hojo-e]

This is a very complicated kind of clusterfuck. Interesting times! I'm morbidly curious to see it but I won't live long enough.

Assuming there is nothing that can be done to solve the problem, If you were Donald Trump what would you do?

As I read the report I selfishly thought that building walls, discouraging immigration, smashing unilateral agreements and installing tariffs to encourage self-sufficiency are steps in the direction of trying to keep Americans from becoming the biggest losers in this thing.

[jacob]

@cmonkey - By "it" I mean TEOTWAWKI at 3C starting some 40-60 years from now... when the "decent area" size goes to zero and it's no longer "just" affecting those who live in the wrong place or stocking up on food and water will solve the problem but where there's no escaping anymore. I'll die before that happens or as it happens. I have the right age for it.

@Seppia - Most people care mostly about their paycheck which puts food in the table and electricity in the walls(*). I think people do care ... but they just don't think this problem is about them, personally, and their personal choices.

What's revealing as well is that we're discussing this online as if logging onto this forum is a given and not part of the problem. Has anyone reading this eliminated some appliances/use thereof or otherwise commenced some serious budget chances since this morning? Or even thought about it? Anyone made any plans to cut their spending in half over the next 10 years? Probably not ...

(*) Which makes the solution part of the problem or the problem part of the solution.

[Seppia]

My personal carbon footprint is probably in the top 0.1% of the world’s population*, so in retrospect I should probably STFU about any environmental matter.

*DW and I are very energy efficient, we eat very little meat, we don’t have kids, but it is all compensated by the fact that my job leads me to take TONS of flights.
Hopefully this can change relatively soon

[daylen]

Any idea how long until Kansas is unable to grow food?