I opened this article hoping it would mention the point about the rules concerning reduced sulfur content of the fuel used in super tanker marine shipping, and it didn't disappoint:
"A lot of people have looked at the impact of the marine shipping regulation change. If you take that and you put it into some climate model and you estimate the temperature change, right now you’d expect about 0.05 of a degree, 0.08 of a degree [of warming per year], and then building over a decade to about 0.1 degree. So that seems like it helps, but it doesn’t seem like it’s sufficient."
Seems like the models have quite a few holes. It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.
There are families of models that focus on different things, each family with a number of members that have differing paremeter weightingss, etc.
Yes, there are big overviews of the models and how they differ - the IPCC look at the over|under predictions of all the models and look at the spread and assumptions to select a "most probable" middle ground prediction for climate going forward.
For example while the current year has been warmer than expected it's also been cooler than a number of worst case scenarios that assume faster methane releases and water vapor increases, etc.
I had a goto link for a good overview .. currently it's redirecting to:
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is working on our digital Special Collections and the connection with OSTI. This includes all LLNL produced Technical Reports, Theses & Dissertations, and eSholarship content. We are working at making these available through OSTI. We apologize for the interruption in service.
That doesn't surprise me. Yes, would be interesting to see those assumptions, but I guess the issue (as in most modelling of complex systems) is that as you relax the assumptions, the models become intractable.
> It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.
Yes, they did, it's called an "ensemble model" when multiple models are collated to account for their different modelings.
A friend of mine did his physics PhD on cloud formation at a molecular level exactly to tackle the issue some models had to account for that over longer time scales, most of the holes you can think of from the top of your head have been considered, there are many thousands of very smart people working on these models for the past 30-40 years.
Do you mean "a full model so that you can analyze it with fluid dynamics, differential equations, and thermodynamics", or do you mean "a pre made Gish Gallop that you can rattle off without having to actually think about any of them"?
The "models are wrong" climate change deniers basically mean that the prior likelihood of someone on the internet being genuinely interested in understanding and improving the models is below 1%.
Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.
We are collectively in full on denial about the consequences of climate change. Only directly accountable organizations like militaries and insurers are actually acting on the data. People are still buying cheap stuff from overseas, traveling and generally spending energy like there's no tomorrow. We will only see real changes in behavior and policy once coastal flooding in major metropolises becomes a reality a few decades down the line.
Why do people keep bringing up coastal flooding? Its one of the smallest and least concerning climate change effects.
The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence.
Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.
Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.
I find quite interesting the consequence this failing coffee crops reality brought to us: the rise in aromated coffees. Caramel coffee, tiramisu coffee, dark chocolate with cherries coffee, anything works if it can salvage an otherwise bad crop.
PS coffee like many other plants can't be farmed "just 100km higher up" or something. There may be easier solutions for some crops, but the reality is, the climate is not simply shifting a few kilometers up, but just changes completely so finding another suitable spot - geographically politically and all, is a real challenge.
Sure there will be localized events, but on average, rising temperature and co2 will improve farming world-wide. Hence:
For the 2024-25 financial year, India has exported 2.2 lakh tonnes of coffee, up from 1.91 lakh tonnes in the same period last year, showcasing a 15 percent increase.
Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.
I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.
> Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
...that is not how any of that works, to the point that it's literally a coal-mining company talking point I remember from like, the 2000s (from a video made in the 90s).
Which should be trivially resolved by examining whether a temperate region undergoing a drought is "benefiting from increased temperatures".
Not collectively ignore them but there was an assumption that "hot models" were more wrong a priori, evidence is emerging that perhaps hot models weren't so wrong after all but we collectively don't know yet.
Climate scientists also try to paddle a bit the doomerism because the worst predictions make normal laypeople tune off (as is evident on a lot of comments on HN about it), ignoring those hot models was also a PR move to not make the general public become disinterested or detached since the outcomes might be much worse than they heard before.
I have quite a few friends doing their PhD in different areas of climate science here in Stockholm, all of them are much more pessimistic than the general public, they also think that bringing this sentiment out will make things worse, in their opinion it's good to give people hope.
There will be two events than may sway the skeptics. The first one will be an extended heat wave exceeding heat index temperatures of 55C (35C at 80% humidity) resulting in massive casualties, probably somewhere in a humid climate with an overloaded electrical grid and/or poor access to AC. The second one will be when the skeptics themselves die.
Needless to say, I am not very optimistic about getting climate change under control.
Not only that, we're approaching a massive tipping point in just a couple of weeks. Some of the "poser pontificators" claim to be concerned about the climate, yet they're not even sure they will vote.
If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.
I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be beneficial to have a weaker FAA. Hence probably Trump."
If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming.
That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax. Why not just steer an asteroid onto Earth. The sooner it gets obliterated, the sooner life can reemerge. /s
We all live in the same planet, the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share. For far to long certain countries have taken up much more of their share. To such a point that our whole carbon budget has been used in a single or two generations. Now is the time for those better of to contribute their fair share in solving this mess.
> the most reasonable way to
> share this is that we get an
> equal share. For far to long
> certain countries have taken
> up much more of their share.
As someone from a country where people commonly lived in mud huts well into the 20th century, and which wasn't considered developed until 1975:
Yes, we sure got the raw end of that deal by having more developed countries spearhead technological development.
I'd much rather be doing sustainance farming today than taking my chances with the IPCC's estimate of climate change depressing world GDP by 2-10% by 2100.
Yes, developed countries should be leading the way to becoming carbon neutral or negative, e.g. with nuclear, solar, etc.
But let's not make this into some mischaracterization of early industrialized countries taking something away from the rest of us, that won't survive basic scrutiny.
> The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.
We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.
Degrowth isn't a humane solution, and it would first require the destruction of democracy as no electorate would endure it for long.
We have a finite amount of carbon left. Each year we are already exceeding our share. This in itself means that future generations have less. At the same time, some people use more than others. It's not a matter if degrowth but about sharing ressources fairly.
Likewise, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption resulted in a large amount of water into the stratosphere. Water is far more an effective heat trap than co2. We do not know exactly how long the effects of this eruption will last.
Capitalism is now trying to avoid doing the absolute minimum that we would need to do if the climate catastrophe shall be avoided. In fact I am convinced that if you had to invent a system that that optimized a societies reaction to climate annihilation in such a way that it does the bare minimum as predicted to be needed by climate models it would probably look a lot like what we have today.
The inly issue with that kind of optimization is, just like with all optimization, that by cutting out too much slack from the system you — well —don't have any slack in the system. Slack that would save the day if models are wrong or unpredicted things happen.
This kind of bipartisan thinking is not getting us anywhere, and wasting precious time. China is building a lot of renewable energy infrastructure at this moment, and the US insists on fracking. There is not just black and white, but a lot of hard problems that need solving, now—whether you're Chinese, French, or Kongoan.
Disclaimer: I don't give a fuck about China but you're objectively full of shit
China is only communist in the name, "state capitalism" describes it better. In some aspects it's very similar to how the US operated during war times, just milder. If you think China abolished private property and that Chinese people own the means of productions you probably haven't looked very hard... It's the second country in term of numbers of millionaires and they have hundred thousands of private companies
China is actually doing a lot in term of clean energy, if you (we) didn't use them as the world factory they'd pollute way less. It's both the first producer and the one that moves at the fastest pace. btw per capita China pollutes about 50% less than the US (and about as much as the EU average), while they manufacture and ship a huge part of what is consumed in the US/EU.
It's still going to get worse, until we find a fix, a ultimate fix, but as far as i know, we haven't found it yet. It's like in the movies, until it becomes a global crisis and disaster, nobody pays attention, just scientists.
Here in Spain, we still plan to shut down our nuclear reactors (while many other countries are restarting their nuclear programmes) and at the same time the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs so the transition to electric vehicles remains unaffordable for most people.
When appeasing an ideological voter base or German shareholders remains more important than lowering emissions, we don't have much hope of making further progress.
> the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs
That was my "OK, so you're completely unserious about this" moment. Governments have been subsidizing EVs, now they're cheap enough to not require subsidy, and you're cutting them off to appease the VW liars?
VW is against import tariffs on Chinese cars as they fear repercussions (and China is an important export market to them). There are other car manufacturers in the EU which depend much more on domestic sales.
The climate emergency is just a way to make you pay more taxes and accept a worse life for you and your children than what your parents had. It shames you into accepting we are using up too much, but a select few can still eat meat and fly private jets since they can pay for all the extra taxes, meanwhile you should accept your life of sacrifice for the planet.
If we actually are in trouble the people in power can easily geo-engineer cooling the whole planet. Countries have done cloud seeding for decades, we can cool the planet if we want.
To think things get done in the EU without Germany's approval is a bit past naivety. Germany publicly voted no to try and delay a Chinese reprisal too fast in counter tariffs, but that's just for optics, otherwise they wouldn't have been approved.
It's incredible how one can see what happens in practice but believe what people say rather than what people do.
> But the big uncertainty that determines whether 2100 is a happy place or a less happy place is our decisions on what we do with emissions. And they dwarf the uncertainties that we’re talking about here. We’re talking 0.1, 0.2 degrees. Well, the difference emissions make is 1 degree, 2 degrees, 3 degrees. So it’s an order of magnitude larger. And given the non-linearity of impacts, that’s a much, much larger amount of impact that we would see.
What’s staggering to me is that the climb towards 1.5 C is of course not evenly distributed across the globe. But what it does result in is some places going up as much as 15 F+ above average since 1970.
> Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either.
The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with.
There are two components, 'regular' SO2 and HCl and 'unusual' high magnitude H2O (water vapor):
From the NASA interview linked here:
And the first paper that came out about the volcano, they said, no, no, the normal cooling volcanic pollution is still bigger than the warming water vapor component.
From the wikipedia article you didn't link:
One study { of this specif eruption ) estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years, although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk.
Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres.
More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect.
FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as:
Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor.
'may not' and 'could potentially'
Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed.
According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.
There may have been skeptics 20 years ago, but now no one seriously doubts it.
I don't understand how technology people make decisions to deny a problem even if there is no 100% certainty. In my company, even if there is less than a 1% chance of something going wrong, we have to think of ways to mitigate it.
Anthropogenic global warming has been proposed and modeled since the late XVIII century. The window to reasonably doubt it has been closed since at least the 1980s when Exxon put it on paper they knew about it and wanted to suppress awareness about it.
It's crazy that there are still people who don't get this. "It's cold here, so there's no such thing as global warming." They forget that the other hemisphere is on fire.
Who claims that climate science is flawed? The deniers? All science has degrees of uncertainty, look at physics, biology, medicine. But even so, they provide robust results, unlike creationism, flat-earthers, etc.
I opened this article hoping it would mention the point about the rules concerning reduced sulfur content of the fuel used in super tanker marine shipping, and it didn't disappoint:
"A lot of people have looked at the impact of the marine shipping regulation change. If you take that and you put it into some climate model and you estimate the temperature change, right now you’d expect about 0.05 of a degree, 0.08 of a degree [of warming per year], and then building over a decade to about 0.1 degree. So that seems like it helps, but it doesn’t seem like it’s sufficient."
There was a recent article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-c...
Seems like the models have quite a few holes. It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.
There are families of models that focus on different things, each family with a number of members that have differing paremeter weightingss, etc.
Yes, there are big overviews of the models and how they differ - the IPCC look at the over|under predictions of all the models and look at the spread and assumptions to select a "most probable" middle ground prediction for climate going forward.
For example while the current year has been warmer than expected it's also been cooler than a number of worst case scenarios that assume faster methane releases and water vapor increases, etc.
I had a goto link for a good overview .. currently it's redirecting to:
That doesn't surprise me. Yes, would be interesting to see those assumptions, but I guess the issue (as in most modelling of complex systems) is that as you relax the assumptions, the models become intractable.
> It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.
Yes, they did, it's called an "ensemble model" when multiple models are collated to account for their different modelings.
A friend of mine did his physics PhD on cloud formation at a molecular level exactly to tackle the issue some models had to account for that over longer time scales, most of the holes you can think of from the top of your head have been considered, there are many thousands of very smart people working on these models for the past 30-40 years.
Do you mean "a full model so that you can analyze it with fluid dynamics, differential equations, and thermodynamics", or do you mean "a pre made Gish Gallop that you can rattle off without having to actually think about any of them"?
Something in-between a macro-economic model and a physical simulation.
Don’t be anti-intellectual by default
The "models are wrong" climate change deniers basically mean that the prior likelihood of someone on the internet being genuinely interested in understanding and improving the models is below 1%.
Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.
We are collectively in full on denial about the consequences of climate change. Only directly accountable organizations like militaries and insurers are actually acting on the data. People are still buying cheap stuff from overseas, traveling and generally spending energy like there's no tomorrow. We will only see real changes in behavior and policy once coastal flooding in major metropolises becomes a reality a few decades down the line.
Don't forget food.
Eating so much meat, especially beef is devastating on the environment.
A single hamburger pollutes like driving an SUV for 50 miles.
For some reason the food industry catches very little attention despite the gigantic impact.
Why do people keep bringing up coastal flooding? Its one of the smallest and least concerning climate change effects.
The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence.
Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.
Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.
Because it will remove plenty of land https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z and displace plenty of people
> Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.
Temperature and co2 increases are beneficial to plant growth. What is the problematic aspect you are referring to?
Extreme rain, extreme drought. And that degree rise is on average it's going to be much worse in some place.
Just look at the production if coffee recently, its a catastrophe.
I find quite interesting the consequence this failing coffee crops reality brought to us: the rise in aromated coffees. Caramel coffee, tiramisu coffee, dark chocolate with cherries coffee, anything works if it can salvage an otherwise bad crop.
PS coffee like many other plants can't be farmed "just 100km higher up" or something. There may be easier solutions for some crops, but the reality is, the climate is not simply shifting a few kilometers up, but just changes completely so finding another suitable spot - geographically politically and all, is a real challenge.
Sure there will be localized events, but on average, rising temperature and co2 will improve farming world-wide. Hence:
For the 2024-25 financial year, India has exported 2.2 lakh tonnes of coffee, up from 1.91 lakh tonnes in the same period last year, showcasing a 15 percent increase.
https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/money/indian-coffee-exp...
Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.
I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.
Previous temperature changes occurred over millennia, not a century and a half.
Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
> Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
...that is not how any of that works, to the point that it's literally a coal-mining company talking point I remember from like, the 2000s (from a video made in the 90s).
Which should be trivially resolved by examining whether a temperate region undergoing a drought is "benefiting from increased temperatures".
Not collectively ignore them but there was an assumption that "hot models" were more wrong a priori, evidence is emerging that perhaps hot models weren't so wrong after all but we collectively don't know yet.
Climate scientists also try to paddle a bit the doomerism because the worst predictions make normal laypeople tune off (as is evident on a lot of comments on HN about it), ignoring those hot models was also a PR move to not make the general public become disinterested or detached since the outcomes might be much worse than they heard before.
I have quite a few friends doing their PhD in different areas of climate science here in Stockholm, all of them are much more pessimistic than the general public, they also think that bringing this sentiment out will make things worse, in their opinion it's good to give people hope.
Not only the climate is warmer than models anticipated, we're doing worse to prevent it than pessimistic expectations.
There will be two events than may sway the skeptics. The first one will be an extended heat wave exceeding heat index temperatures of 55C (35C at 80% humidity) resulting in massive casualties, probably somewhere in a humid climate with an overloaded electrical grid and/or poor access to AC. The second one will be when the skeptics themselves die.
Needless to say, I am not very optimistic about getting climate change under control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_index#Table_of_values
Not only that, we're approaching a massive tipping point in just a couple of weeks. Some of the "poser pontificators" claim to be concerned about the climate, yet they're not even sure they will vote.
If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.
I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be beneficial to have a weaker FAA. Hence probably Trump."
If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_sol...
SpaceX doesn’t need a weaker FAA to keep launching very frequently, they’re already doing that.
A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.
That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax. Why not just steer an asteroid onto Earth. The sooner it gets obliterated, the sooner life can reemerge. /s
We all live in the same planet, the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share. For far to long certain countries have taken up much more of their share. To such a point that our whole carbon budget has been used in a single or two generations. Now is the time for those better of to contribute their fair share in solving this mess.
Yes, we sure got the raw end of that deal by having more developed countries spearhead technological development.
I'd much rather be doing sustainance farming today than taking my chances with the IPCC's estimate of climate change depressing world GDP by 2-10% by 2100.
Yes, developed countries should be leading the way to becoming carbon neutral or negative, e.g. with nuclear, solar, etc.
But let's not make this into some mischaracterization of early industrialized countries taking something away from the rest of us, that won't survive basic scrutiny.
To quote Reagan:
> The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.
We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.
Degrowth isn't a humane solution, and it would first require the destruction of democracy as no electorate would endure it for long.
We have a finite amount of carbon left. Each year we are already exceeding our share. This in itself means that future generations have less. At the same time, some people use more than others. It's not a matter if degrowth but about sharing ressources fairly.
which countries? china, the west?
more importantly, we should stop pointing fingers and act within our reach!
"the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share"
That doesn't sound reasonable to me.
How do you to find equal?
Who implements the counting and penalties for someone taking more or less than their Fair share?
Is there anybody who is going to be left out of "we"?
I could go on...
What do you think sounds reasonable?
yeah well.. the world will literally burn before that
Does being in an El Niño period affect the average world temperature?
Likewise, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption resulted in a large amount of water into the stratosphere. Water is far more an effective heat trap than co2. We do not know exactly how long the effects of this eruption will last.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻap...
Capitalism is now trying to avoid doing the absolute minimum that we would need to do if the climate catastrophe shall be avoided. In fact I am convinced that if you had to invent a system that that optimized a societies reaction to climate annihilation in such a way that it does the bare minimum as predicted to be needed by climate models it would probably look a lot like what we have today.
The inly issue with that kind of optimization is, just like with all optimization, that by cutting out too much slack from the system you — well —don't have any slack in the system. Slack that would save the day if models are wrong or unpredicted things happen.
[flagged]
This kind of bipartisan thinking is not getting us anywhere, and wasting precious time. China is building a lot of renewable energy infrastructure at this moment, and the US insists on fracking. There is not just black and white, but a lot of hard problems that need solving, now—whether you're Chinese, French, or Kongoan.
You mean China that built more solar last year than the rest of the world combined? Not to mention batteries.
Concurrently, china also built the most coal power generation capacity last year than the rest of the world.
> communist china
Disclaimer: I don't give a fuck about China but you're objectively full of shit
China is only communist in the name, "state capitalism" describes it better. In some aspects it's very similar to how the US operated during war times, just milder. If you think China abolished private property and that Chinese people own the means of productions you probably haven't looked very hard... It's the second country in term of numbers of millionaires and they have hundred thousands of private companies
China is actually doing a lot in term of clean energy, if you (we) didn't use them as the world factory they'd pollute way less. It's both the first producer and the one that moves at the fastest pace. btw per capita China pollutes about 50% less than the US (and about as much as the EU average), while they manufacture and ship a huge part of what is consumed in the US/EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...
> China produced 31% of global renewable electricity, followed by the United States (11%), Brazil (6.4%), Canada (5.4%) and India (3.9%)
https://www.irena.org/Data/View-data-by-topic/Capacity-and-G...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
Which communist china are you talking about? That thing has stopped existing decades ago.
China is autocratic but it's not communist or 'non-capitalist' by any stretch of the imagination.
It's still going to get worse, until we find a fix, a ultimate fix, but as far as i know, we haven't found it yet. It's like in the movies, until it becomes a global crisis and disaster, nobody pays attention, just scientists.
Governments still don't take it seriously though.
Here in Spain, we still plan to shut down our nuclear reactors (while many other countries are restarting their nuclear programmes) and at the same time the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs so the transition to electric vehicles remains unaffordable for most people.
When appeasing an ideological voter base or German shareholders remains more important than lowering emissions, we don't have much hope of making further progress.
> the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs
That was my "OK, so you're completely unserious about this" moment. Governments have been subsidizing EVs, now they're cheap enough to not require subsidy, and you're cutting them off to appease the VW liars?
VW is against import tariffs on Chinese cars as they fear repercussions (and China is an important export market to them). There are other car manufacturers in the EU which depend much more on domestic sales.
The climate emergency is just a way to make you pay more taxes and accept a worse life for you and your children than what your parents had. It shames you into accepting we are using up too much, but a select few can still eat meat and fly private jets since they can pay for all the extra taxes, meanwhile you should accept your life of sacrifice for the planet.
If we actually are in trouble the people in power can easily geo-engineer cooling the whole planet. Countries have done cloud seeding for decades, we can cool the planet if we want.
I think it’s important to point out that German car manufacturers and the German government opposed import tariffs on Chinese cars.
To think things get done in the EU without Germany's approval is a bit past naivety. Germany publicly voted no to try and delay a Chinese reprisal too fast in counter tariffs, but that's just for optics, otherwise they wouldn't have been approved.
It's incredible how one can see what happens in practice but believe what people say rather than what people do.
That’s just a conspiracy theory. You overestimate Germanys power in the EU by far, it is not 2009 anymore.
Also, German car manufacturers will not profit from these tariffs.
Fair enough, but in the end we still got the tariffs.
> But the big uncertainty that determines whether 2100 is a happy place or a less happy place is our decisions on what we do with emissions. And they dwarf the uncertainties that we’re talking about here. We’re talking 0.1, 0.2 degrees. Well, the difference emissions make is 1 degree, 2 degrees, 3 degrees. So it’s an order of magnitude larger. And given the non-linearity of impacts, that’s a much, much larger amount of impact that we would see.
What’s staggering to me is that the climb towards 1.5 C is of course not evenly distributed across the globe. But what it does result in is some places going up as much as 15 F+ above average since 1970.
Wasn't this a result of removing sulfur from Ocean going vessel fuels?
No.
Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either.
Both are addressed in the article along with other possibilities.
> Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either.
The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL09...
There are two components, 'regular' SO2 and HCl and 'unusual' high magnitude H2O (water vapor):
From the NASA interview linked here:
From the wikipedia article you didn't link: ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga...Which is contrary to the time sequence you claim.
FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as:
'may not' and 'could potentially'Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed.
According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.
[dead]
[flagged]
The skeptical view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
Post a couple of videos about ancient aliens inventing civilization and time travel while you're at it
You mean the deniers' view.
There may have been skeptics 20 years ago, but now no one seriously doubts it.
I don't understand how technology people make decisions to deny a problem even if there is no 100% certainty. In my company, even if there is less than a 1% chance of something going wrong, we have to think of ways to mitigate it.
Anthropogenic global warming has been proposed and modeled since the late XVIII century. The window to reasonably doubt it has been closed since at least the 1980s when Exxon put it on paper they knew about it and wanted to suppress awareness about it.
Spring time and it’s 7 degrees. Usually higher this time of year.
Weather is not climate...
It's crazy that there are still people who don't get this. "It's cold here, so there's no such thing as global warming." They forget that the other hemisphere is on fire.
What’s amazing is despite flawed science people keep believing it and insulting anyone who questions it.
Who claims that climate science is flawed? The deniers? All science has degrees of uncertainty, look at physics, biology, medicine. But even so, they provide robust results, unlike creationism, flat-earthers, etc.
“What’s Causing the Recent Spike in Global Temperatures?”
They're not talking about local weather, they're talking about longer timeframe lager region moving averages.
Eg: three month moving average for a north american climatic cell rather than a local daily spring tempreture.
Autumn time and it's 15C here, it's usually getting to sub-10C to sub-5C by mid-October where I live.
Weather != climate.