The Carbon Budget - Civilization's Epic Fail

[Quintessence]

The New York Times published a really fascinating interactive article (You Fix It: Can You Stay Within the World’s Carbon Budget?) on the carbon budget idea fielded during the Paris accord. The carbon budget was set at 2,900 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the amount of the gas we can have in the atmosphere to limit warming to no more than 2ºC and prevent the most disruptive effects of global warming. By 2100, projections are we will be at 8,100 gigatons of carbon dioxide, which is three times over the budget. Can we hit the marks at all?

You get to choose various scenarios for carbon emissions worldwide going forward in major areas of the world to see if it keeps us under that budget. The interactive component is interesting. I went and selected the moderate path, but even that wasn't enough:

"Staying under the budget requires large emission cuts starting immediately. This is the point climate scientists have been trying to make for some time — that countries must commit to aggressive reductions in carbon emissions to prevent disastrous effects of climate change. Even if all countries met their Paris targets, it still wouldn’t be enough."
You Fix It: Can You Stay Within the World’s Carbon Budget?​

Kinda depressing, all in all. Seems we're on track for this to be civilization's epic fail. Eh, civilization is overrated anyway. I'd say we could go back to nature, except we've kinda screwed all that up too with global scale ecocide and a sixth mass extinction.

(Sorry, I aim to be optimistic with these things, but it's getting a lot more challenging for me to do that.)

 

[suncowiam]

Shouldn't this be in the liberal section?

I'm just kidding. I'm a liberal and I couldn't resist.

Seriously now.

I care mostly for my kids. But if I didn't have kids, then if the Earth has to go through another mass extinction to cleanse itself, then so be it. Humans need to learn and they need to learn the hard way some times.

Just for the record, I do believe in climate change. If you've debated a climate change denier then you know it's all falling on deaf ears. I don't think anything including science will change their minds until the Earth craps on them.

 

[Nakosis]

The New York Times published a really fascinating interactive article (You Fix It: Can You Stay Within the World’s Carbon Budget?) on the carbon budget idea fielded during the Paris accord. The carbon budget was set at 2,900 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the amount of the gas we can have in the atmosphere to limit warming to no more than 2ºC and prevent the most disruptive effects of global warming. By 2100, projections are we will be at 8,100 gigatons of carbon dioxide, which is three times over the budget. Can we hit the marks at all?

You get to choose various scenarios for carbon emissions worldwide going forward in major areas of the world to see if it keeps us under that budget. The interactive component is interesting. I went and selected the moderate path, but even that wasn't enough:

"Staying under the budget requires large emission cuts starting immediately. This is the point climate scientists have been trying to make for some time — that countries must commit to aggressive reductions in carbon emissions to prevent disastrous effects of climate change. Even if all countries met their Paris targets, it still wouldn’t be enough."
You Fix It: Can You Stay Within the World’s Carbon Budget?​

Kinda depressing, all in all. Seems we're on track for this to be civilization's epic fail. Eh, civilization is overrated anyway. I'd say we could go back to nature, except we've kinda screwed all that up too with global scale ecocide and a sixth mass extinction.

(Sorry, I aim to be optimistic with these things, but it's getting a lot more challenging for me to do that.)

I did it. Supporting scientific endeavors to remove carbon. Having the US flaten it's emissions. (tried my best to avoid that and almost got to the goal, but unfortunately the last 300 gigatons required it.)

And eliminated every other country on the planet.

Well, I'll advise Trump to get started eliminating.

Let's get this done!

 

[Revoltingest]

If you've debated a climate change denier then you know it's all falling on deaf ears. I don't think anything including science will change their minds until the Earth craps on them.

I've found that it's best to ignore statistics, which aren't very accessible to ordinary folk.
Instead, we can look at actual human experience, particularly in arctic regions where
warming is strongest, & is already affecting lives. Add to this the pre-existing need to
face regular coastal flooding & storm disasters. Much of what what we need to do
re GW is already worth doing. And many things which would mitigate GW are also
worth doing for economic & other environmental reasons, eg, curbing fossil fuel usage,
controlling population, energy efficiency measures, tiny homes.
Deniers are often very practical people. Appeal to that, and you'll find common ground.

 

[Sanzbir]

The carbon limits of the Paris Accords won't do anything. Even their advocates state this.

 

[suncowiam]

I've found that it's best to ignore statistics, which aren't very accessible to ordinary folk.
Instead, we can look at actual human experience, particularly in arctic regions where
warming is strongest, & is already affecting lives. Add to this the pre-existing need to
face regular coastal flooding & storm disasters. Much of what what we need to do
re GW is already worth doing. And many things which would mitigate GW are also
worth doing for economic & other environmental reasons, eg, curbing fossil fuel usage,
controlling population, energy efficiency measures.
Deniers are often very practical people. Appeal to that.

That's an indirect approach which is better than no approach. But the best approach, probably because I'm an engineer, is simply through science and information.

Personally, I'm not going to sales pitch to people all these parallel points when the primary point concerning self-destruction should be the main focus. Not everyone will be aligned to even those parallel points.

But then it's all "doom and gloom" from the left, so liiiike what eeeeever.

 

[Spiderman]

It's depressing but getting depressed about it won't help it or you.

 

[Sanzbir]

Instead, we can look at actual human experience, particularly in arctic regions where warming is strongest, & is already affecting lives.

Like what?? The booming walrus population and unprecedented herd sizes and how that benefits arctic hunting populations??

Yeah no. Stick to statistics and hard facts. Not feelings and experiences, which can vary widely from person to person.

 

[suncowiam]

The carbon limits of the Paris Accords won't do anything. Even their advocates state this.

If the nations actually complied and succeeded with the carbon limits, there will be a negative temperature change. But it's not substantial in the short-term period. It will be substantial in the long-term.

What the critics suggest is that nations will not comply and there is no hard way to enforce these carbon limits. So some see it as an imbalance of restrictions to those that would comply.

You should differentiate between the theoretical and the practical.

 

[Sanzbir]

If the nations actually complied and succeeded with the carbon limits, there will be a negative temperature change. But it's not substantial in the short-term period. It will be substantial in the long-term.

What the critics suggest is that nations will not comply and there is no hard way to enforce these carbon limits. So some see it as an imbalance of restrictions those that would comply.

You should differentiate between the theoretical and the practical.

It will not. It is widely accepted by scientists that the proposal of the Paris Accords, if followed, would only serve to slow warming by a minute amount. It will not lead to cooling by any analysis I've seen. All I've seen about the Paris Accords are either criticism that it doesn't do enough, or concerns about the economic impact. That's all I've seen expressed.

 

[suncowiam]

It will not. It is widely accepted by scientists that the proposal of the Paris Accords, if followed, would only serve to slow warming by a minute amount. It will not lead to cooling by any analysis I've seen. All I've seen about the Paris Accords are either criticism that it doesn't do enough, or concerns about the economic impact. That's all I've seen expressed.

DIdn't I just say the same thing? That "it's not substantial in the short term?"

So the logic needs to be that any accords should out-right fix it within a year before we adopt it?

 

[Sanzbir]

DIdn't I just say the same thing? That "it's not substantial in the short term?"

So the logic needs to be that any accords should out-right fix it within a year before we adopt it?

No. I'm saying it's not even projected to be effective in the long term.

If your solution is "well this doesn't fix the problem, but we'll figure out how to really fix it later" then I suggest you don't actually have a solution.

 

[suncowiam]

No. I'm saying it's not even projected to be effective in the long term.

If temperatures are falling year after year, you don't think it will be effective in the long-term?

Maybe I misread my sources, but is the prediction just a one-time temperature drop?

 

[Sanzbir]

If temperatures are falling year after year, you don't think it will be effective in the long-term?

Maybe I misread my sources, but is the prediction just a one-time temperature drop?

Everything I've seen does not predict a temperature drop. It predicts the rate of the temperature increasing dropping, but that still means the temperature is increasing.

 

[suncowiam]

Everything I've see does not predict a temperature drop. It predicts the rate of the temperature increasing dropping, but that still means the temperature is increasing.

Could you forward me your sources?

 

[Sanzbir]

Could you forward me your sources?

Here's a graph that does a good job at showing the effects projected:

Bjorn Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals DOI

Do you have a source that claims otherwise, that the temperature itself will drop?? Because I've never seen anyone ever claim that will be the effect.

 

[metis]

I see some misinformation being thrown around here, so let me recommend reading this link and maybe checking in on some of the links to studies that have been done: Global warming - Wikipedia

 

[Sanzbir]

I see some misinformation being thrown around here, so let me recommend reading this link and maybe checking in on some of the links to studies that have been done: Global warming - Wikipedia

Oh, I really hope your post is a joke. And if so, it's a really good one!!

 

[suncowiam]

Here's a graph that does a good job at showing the effects projected:

Bjorn Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals DOI

Do you have a source that claims otherwise, that the temperature itself will drop?? Because I've never seen anyone ever claim that will be the effect.

I probably misread it and I wouldn't be able to source it now.

Well, even if it does not dramatically effect the temperatures, isn't the overall goal still to reduce a carbon footprint? I see it as an initial step not just for initial action but to influence further action.

What is your suggestion? What are our other alternatives? Wait until we find a more effective solution? How long should we wait?

 

[metis]

Oh, I really hope your post is a joke. And if so, it's a really good one!!

Well, you can laugh all you want, but the research clearly shows that we are in a warming trend that will only get worse if we do nothing but pour more carbon and methane into our atmosphere. The Wiki article really is pretty much spot-on and largely matches what I've been reading about in "Scientific American" for decades now. I'm a scientist, now retired, who respects what the research is showing and what the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists have concluded.