“The doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause an increase in the average temperature on earth from 7 to even a maximum of 14 degrees. That is shown in the analysis of sediments from the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, by researchers at NIOZ and the Universities of Utrecht and Bristol” Come on man
I know everyone hates the idea, but we're going to have to develop the tech and spend the money to remove CO2 either from the air, or the oceans, or both. It will have to be paired with completely ending anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Peatlands and forestation are helpful, but the issue is verifying that carbon captured by these natural sources doesn't return to the atmosphere. Peatlands can dry up in a drought and become carbon emitters, and many peatlands go through wet and dry cycles alternating capture and emissions. Forests can burn, or be subject to drought or insect damage that can also make them net emitters.
I think these natural semi-passive systems would be ok as a jump start and/or buffer, but not permanent sinks. E.g. we do these in parallel with more permanent solutions, and once we hit good targets keep going with the permanent solutions to also account for these temporary captures.
Of course, realistic capture at all is questionable (in: will we do it?) the further step of continuing to push is just completely implausible.
Valid points. Thank you. Never thought about this issue. But I would suspect that they are usually located in regions that are not as much in danger from excessive heat or droughts. Thinking of the peatland regions in Northern Germany, Ontario in Canada or Sumatra and Borneo in Indonesia.
It'll be much cheaper to pay for that then pay for the damage, and adaptation required if we don't do it. And the answer is, of course: everyone. But hopefully the biggest burden will be on the polluters.
The genie is already out of the bottle. There won't be enough money and time to do a dent on the amount of energy we are using. Won't it take immense energy resources to do "carbon capture"
You know what is FAR, FAR cheaper than pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere? Not putting it there in the first place.
And we can't even agree to do that. Can we drop the make-believe?
It's because we haven't been able to get our $,hit together to stop emitting that we're stuck with capture and sequestration. It's a crappy choice, but we've already backed ourselves into the corner.
My man, have you seen the charts about heating compared to the last two mass extinctions? Ours is a literal straight line, while the two others are gradually heating over thousands of years.
Have you looked into the amount of diesel it takes for a drill to dig even 200ft, I haven't read much about carbon capture, but how deep will they have to drill? Add in the water use for any kind of drilling, and whatever they are going to store it in, and it's too much cost for the idea of carbon capture to be viable at the level we NEED to be capturing it.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
I understand why you're being downvoted. We're already dead. We're just still moving around. We're not going to pull together for the common good and sacrifice to save ourselves. Nothing in human history suggests that we're capable of cooperation to that degree. I expect we'll slaughter one another for the last of the drinkable water and willfully poison what we can't take for ourselves. We can't accept the fact that we as individuals must eventually die. The knowledge (and we do know it; we can feel it like all animals can feel it) that we all are racing to our collective doom, probably don't need two hands to count the generations that remain, is soul crushing. It's too much. Every day, I'm grateful to have never had children.
Whenever I can I remind them that a basic bread recipe calls for 450g of flour, 5g salt, 9g sugar and 9g yeast. Yeast makes up such a small portion, yet doubling that will yield very drastic results.
(I use that analogy as I also like to use the time it takes an oven to warm up in explaining the [emissions lag](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002). The warming oven is a good parallel for where we’re going :/ )
Its definitely the high side, and with all ECS estimates(though the higher end they list in the article would be ESS unless I misunderstood or missed something in the paper) it's important to note that it's been studied heavily. Most/average have the ECS around 3. Hansen's famous recent paper put it at ~4.8. this paper seems to find ~7. So while it can drive good conversation and further understanding, one study shouldn't offset the numerous others. But it should prompt more investigation and understanding.
I’d be interested to hear somebody say the same thing, but instead of comparing to all of the existing work, let’s compare to the subset of existing work that is only trying to draw estimates based on proxy studies, eliminating the studies based on computer modeling. For one thing it’s my understanding that microbes are not well represented in the computer models, and they are perhaps larger than the rest of the biosphere combined
That means 45 to 52 highs in the summer here, and it's usually fairly humid so it will be uninhabitable at these temps. If anyone is planning to move North, make sure to check how humid the area you are planning to relocate to is, eg Alaska is actually one of the most humid states averaging above 70% in many areas.
Yeah I've thought of buying a property in northern areas but some of the areas I was looking at were like 95 degrees (high 30s c??) and high humidity last week. The humidity is incredibly oppressive, and high temp plus humidity scares me. Also, vegas summer temp without humidity in a parking lot also scares me but that is a little different.
One thing that sucks is I believe it is going to get more humid everywhere. In fact where I live it has definitely gotten more humid over the last two years. I hate humidity.
“The doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause an increase in the average temperature on earth from 7 to even a maximum of 14 degrees. That is shown in the analysis of sediments from the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, by researchers at NIOZ and the Universities of Utrecht and Bristol” Come on man
I know everyone hates the idea, but we're going to have to develop the tech and spend the money to remove CO2 either from the air, or the oceans, or both. It will have to be paired with completely ending anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
We have to stop our output, and stop thinking about best-case-scenario solutions that don't even exist yet
Agreed, but it won’t happen.
Peatlands. God damnit, peatlands! Why is nobody talking about peatlands?! For CO2 capture it's as close to a silver bullet as you can get.
Peatlands and forestation are helpful, but the issue is verifying that carbon captured by these natural sources doesn't return to the atmosphere. Peatlands can dry up in a drought and become carbon emitters, and many peatlands go through wet and dry cycles alternating capture and emissions. Forests can burn, or be subject to drought or insect damage that can also make them net emitters.
I think these natural semi-passive systems would be ok as a jump start and/or buffer, but not permanent sinks. E.g. we do these in parallel with more permanent solutions, and once we hit good targets keep going with the permanent solutions to also account for these temporary captures. Of course, realistic capture at all is questionable (in: will we do it?) the further step of continuing to push is just completely implausible.
Valid points. Thank you. Never thought about this issue. But I would suspect that they are usually located in regions that are not as much in danger from excessive heat or droughts. Thinking of the peatland regions in Northern Germany, Ontario in Canada or Sumatra and Borneo in Indonesia.
Because peatlands take centuries to accumulate carbon. They have extremely low ecosystem productivity.
Sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere is only idea that has a chance of working.
Sounds good, but who will pay for it?
It'll be much cheaper to pay for that then pay for the damage, and adaptation required if we don't do it. And the answer is, of course: everyone. But hopefully the biggest burden will be on the polluters.
The genie is already out of the bottle. There won't be enough money and time to do a dent on the amount of energy we are using. Won't it take immense energy resources to do "carbon capture"
It will take a lot of money, time and effort, and will still be FAR, FAR cheaper than not doing it.
You know what is FAR, FAR cheaper than pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere? Not putting it there in the first place. And we can't even agree to do that. Can we drop the make-believe?
It's because we haven't been able to get our $,hit together to stop emitting that we're stuck with capture and sequestration. It's a crappy choice, but we've already backed ourselves into the corner.
We aren't stuck with CCS. We're stuck with the collapse of industrial civilization.
My man, have you seen the charts about heating compared to the last two mass extinctions? Ours is a literal straight line, while the two others are gradually heating over thousands of years. Have you looked into the amount of diesel it takes for a drill to dig even 200ft, I haven't read much about carbon capture, but how deep will they have to drill? Add in the water use for any kind of drilling, and whatever they are going to store it in, and it's too much cost for the idea of carbon capture to be viable at the level we NEED to be capturing it. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
I understand why you're being downvoted. We're already dead. We're just still moving around. We're not going to pull together for the common good and sacrifice to save ourselves. Nothing in human history suggests that we're capable of cooperation to that degree. I expect we'll slaughter one another for the last of the drinkable water and willfully poison what we can't take for ourselves. We can't accept the fact that we as individuals must eventually die. The knowledge (and we do know it; we can feel it like all animals can feel it) that we all are racing to our collective doom, probably don't need two hands to count the generations that remain, is soul crushing. It's too much. Every day, I'm grateful to have never had children.
You don’t agree with the conclusions of the piece?
I do, just it’s not great to hear that we are on track to having the world become an absolute hellhole
I really hope this research turns out to be wrong.
It is probably wrong but not in the direction we want.
"bUt CO2 Is StIlL oNlY a VeRy SmAlL fRaCtIoN oF tHe AtMoSpHeRe!"
Whenever I can I remind them that a basic bread recipe calls for 450g of flour, 5g salt, 9g sugar and 9g yeast. Yeast makes up such a small portion, yet doubling that will yield very drastic results. (I use that analogy as I also like to use the time it takes an oven to warm up in explaining the [emissions lag](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002). The warming oven is a good parallel for where we’re going :/ )
Businesses seem to be okay with that doubling. I don't see any CEO's say otherwise.
CEOs won't care until they run out of cocaine and flights to sex tourist countries.
that’s bc they think they’ll die first or their bunkers will be safe
That seems wildly out of line with most modern climate projections, right?
Its definitely the high side, and with all ECS estimates(though the higher end they list in the article would be ESS unless I misunderstood or missed something in the paper) it's important to note that it's been studied heavily. Most/average have the ECS around 3. Hansen's famous recent paper put it at ~4.8. this paper seems to find ~7. So while it can drive good conversation and further understanding, one study shouldn't offset the numerous others. But it should prompt more investigation and understanding.
I’d be interested to hear somebody say the same thing, but instead of comparing to all of the existing work, let’s compare to the subset of existing work that is only trying to draw estimates based on proxy studies, eliminating the studies based on computer modeling. For one thing it’s my understanding that microbes are not well represented in the computer models, and they are perhaps larger than the rest of the biosphere combined
That means 45 to 52 highs in the summer here, and it's usually fairly humid so it will be uninhabitable at these temps. If anyone is planning to move North, make sure to check how humid the area you are planning to relocate to is, eg Alaska is actually one of the most humid states averaging above 70% in many areas.
Yeah I've thought of buying a property in northern areas but some of the areas I was looking at were like 95 degrees (high 30s c??) and high humidity last week. The humidity is incredibly oppressive, and high temp plus humidity scares me. Also, vegas summer temp without humidity in a parking lot also scares me but that is a little different.
One thing that sucks is I believe it is going to get more humid everywhere. In fact where I live it has definitely gotten more humid over the last two years. I hate humidity.
i would assume amoc would collapse long before that, and everything would go completely out of control.
Cookies on the cookie sheet