
The terrible truth of climate change - asaegyn
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1566136800/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change
======
hashberry
If you really want some terrible truth...

China draws 70 percent of its electricity from coal and is building 300-500
new coal plants by 2030[0][1]. Nothing we do can offset this new CO2.

[0] [https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-
placin...](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-
global-bet-on-coal)

[1] [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-
coal-p...](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-
plants-2030-climate/)

~~~
colinator
What if there were a border-adjustment carbon tax? So countries that emit a
lot of CO2 get taxed into oblivion? That's a thing we could do... (_will_ do:
another story)

~~~
kryogen1c
What an interesting idea. Carbon footprint adjusted import\export tariffs.
Community enforceable, incentivises r&d and profiteers towards low carbon FP
products.

Maybe the tariffs go into some kind of refugee trust, or disaster preparedness
account

~~~
codehandle
I think would your proposing would be a World-Bank type action. The world bank
apparently exists to use loans as leverage to get countries to change policy.
That gets close to what you're after.

The problem with using the UN for this kind of action is that the UN has never
imposed a tax or tariff. This would be new territory for the UN. I'm sure
countries would have some problems with sovereignty. The alternative would be
that all nations would act in concert to impose these tariffs.

But then if they did that, you wouldn't have a universal refugee trust. Each
nation would still have control over their own finances.

Anyway, I think through the implications of what your proposing I realize why
it's been so hard to get anything to change. Any kind of action requires
unprecedented worldwide coordination.

------
asaegyn
Hmmm, this post was briefly the #2 in HN, and now it's completely
disappeared.... Any idea how that might happen?

~~~
colinator
I'm curious about this as well. It's now #69, 5 minutes later. I seem to
recall this happening quite a bit for global warming stories. Anyone from HN
want to explain please? Do all 'political' stories get buried?

~~~
SCHiM
I noticed this too! We have no insight in how this works 'under the hood'. But
this one really disappeared disturbingly fast.

------
mudil
At least Google is doing something about the climate change. The most
important people in the world (not you) are gathering in Palermo to tackle the
terrible future, thanks to a Google workshop. With at least 114 private jets
and yachts, we are digging our grave in a way that even looks beautiful.

[https://palermo.gds.it/articoli/economia/2019/07/28/effetto-...](https://palermo.gds.it/articoli/economia/2019/07/28/effetto-
google-camp-114-jet-privati-allaeroporto-di-palermo-1be6fa00-48d0-4efd-
be60-f84d4d0a6fad/)

[https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/114657574/...](https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/114657574/graeme-
hart-barack-obama-tom-cruise-attending-googles-climatefocused-camp-reports)

------
apo
> One common metric used to investigate the effects of global warming is known
> as “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, defined as the full amount of global
> surface warming that will eventually occur in response to a doubling of
> atmospheric CO2 concentrations compared to pre-industrial times.

The article bases its warning on this "equilibrium climate sensitivity" metric
(aka "sensitivity"). This widely-used benchmarks allows the many different
lines of evidence to be used together and translated into real-world effects.

The article cites a pre-industrial CO2 measurement of 280ppm, and a current
measurement of 410ppm. If current trends hold, the doubling point (560ppm CO2)
will occur in 2060.

The rest of the article deals with models that are predicting much higher
sensitivity than earlier models. In 2013 the estimate was 1.5 - 4.5 degrees C.
The new models are predicting 2.8 - 5.8 degrees C, with eight of the (unknown
total) models predicting 5 degrees or higher. These results are scheduled to
be published in the 2021 IPCC report.

For comparison, the Paris Agreement seeks to limit temperature increases to no
more than 2 degrees C.

What would 5 degrees C warming mean for the Earth?

> The most comprehensive summary of conditions experienced during past warm
> periods in the Earth’s recent history was published in June 2018 ... by 59
> leading experts from 17 countries. The report concluded that warming of
> between 1.5 and 2°C in the past was enough to see significant shifts in
> climate zones, and land and aquatic ecosystems “spatially reorganize”.

> These changes triggered substantial long-term melting of ice in Greenland
> and Antarctica, unleashing 6 to 13 metres of global sea-level rise lasting
> thousands of years.

To the extent that the models are right and the study of past warming
incidents applies in the future, we can expect sea level rises in excess of 6
- 13 meters (lasting thousands of years) by 2060 and significant shifts in
climate zones.

~~~
makerofspoons
The ECS isn't particularly helpful for near-term predictions of temperature
change. The transient climate response is essentially unchanged in these new
models (1-2.5 degrees) immediately after a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ECS is the equilibrium change and could take centuries to fully be felt.

------
asaegyn
To be clear, this is a report by Joëlle Gergis, an IPCC contributor, one of
Australia's expert contributors to the IPCC. She is reporting on new interim
developments on the IPCC's simulations across Europe, Canada, the US and other
modelling centres.

Basically, the last models and sims were run in 2013 and reported in 2015.
They have since been updated (and will be officially reported in 2021).

As we have updated our scientific models, it looks like the old ones were
quite optimistic. Seems very newsworthy.

------
peteretep
> It was the realisation that there is now nowhere to hide from the terrible
> truth.

Sure there is: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/senate-
james...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/senate-james-inhofe-
snowball-climate-change)

~~~
commandlinefan
Oh, here we go: China and India are responsible for 90% of the climate change
that we're worried about, but let's blame the Republicans in the U.S. senate
for it anyway.

~~~
_Microft
China's per-capita emissions are also unsustainably high (~ 7t/year and
citizen) but Americans emit about 2.3 times per year and capita. Saving the
same, absolute, amount of emissions will certainly be easier when it is a
lower fraction of the total emissions (i.e. it's easier to avoid e.g. 1/16th
~= 6% of your emissions than 1/7th ~= 14% (that's 1 ton saved per capita and
year in both cases, the former in the US, the latter in China)).

[https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-
emis...](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

------
23throwaway23
Hmmm, from the article:

When the IPCC’s fifth assessment report was published in 2013, it estimated
that such a doubling of CO2 was likely to produce warming within the range of
1.5 to 4.5°C as the Earth reaches a new equilibrium. However, preliminary
estimates calculated from the latest global climate models (being used in the
current IPCC assessment, due out in 2021) are far higher than with the
previous generation of models. Early reports are predicting that a doubling of
CO2 may in fact produce between 2.8 and 5.8°C of warming. Incredibly, at least
eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity
of 5°C or warmer.

...

Even achieving the most ambitious goal of 1.5°C will see the further
destruction of between 70 and 90 per cent of reef-building corals compared to
today, according to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”,
released last October. With 2°C of warming, a staggering 99 per cent of
tropical coral reefs disappear. An entire component of the Earth’s biosphere –
our planetary life support system – would be eliminated. The knock-on effects
on the 25 per cent of all marine life that depends on coral reefs would be
profound and immeasurable.

...

But these days my grief is rapidly being superseded by rage. Volcanically
explosive rage. Because in the very same IPCC report that outlines the details
of the impending apocalypse, the climate science community clearly stated that
limiting warming to 1.5°C is geophysically possible.

Past emissions alone are unlikely to raise global average temperatures to
1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC report states that any further
warming beyond the 1°C already recorded would likely be less than 0.5°C over
the next 20 to 30 years, if all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were
reduced to zero immediately. That is, if we act urgently, it is technically
feasible to turn things around. The only thing missing is strong global
policy.

~~~
mythrwy
Question about reef building coral.

I live literally on top of an old coral reef. In the desert. This area was
under an ocean 10's of millions of years ago.

As the earth warms won't coral simple colonize along the new coastline? Why
will they suddenly be gone? (there may be an answer... I just don't know what
it would be).

~~~
LargeWu
Part of the problem with coral is that the oceans are becoming more acidic,
and as a result, it literally dissolves coral skeletons.

~~~
mythrwy
I can see acidification being an issue for sure. And CO2 is supposed to
increase acidification.

But many geological reef formations are very old, 10's or even hundreds of
millions of years old.

At the time these reefs were formed, CO2 levels were much much higher than
they are predicted to be any time soon.

Yet somehow the reefs were constructed anyway and corals as a species pulled
through. In spite of CO2 levels (per Wikipedia) '''between 200 and 150 million
years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over
6,000 ppm''' (what are we at today? like 400ppm?)

The reef I live on incidentally is thought to have been formed like 265
million years ago. At which time CO2 levels were possibly an order of
magnitude higher than today.

So I really am a bit confused still.

------
_Microft
I wonder why this submission was flagged?

~~~
asaegyn
I thought it meets the guidelines.

It's by Joëlle Gergis, one of Australia's climate experts who contributes to
the IPCC reports.

She is reporting on recent developments in IPCC model simulations that are
being run, and her perspective on this new information and how it should
change our understanding of climate change.

Seems highly newsworthy and relevant to HN.

~~~
_Microft
I'm convinced it's not a problem with the guidelines or source. I would assume
it was killed because it was flagged by users. Maybe someone is brigading this
topic?

I guess you can only wait and see if the mods reverse the decision.

~~~
asaegyn
Someone above claimed it was "off-topic". Any idea how to get it unflagged or
bring it to mod attention?

This seems like a very important article. Just as a point of comparison, tree
planting is great and all, but something like ~100 entities are responsibly
for 71% of all emissions.

~~~
_Microft
I asked the mods via email and the flags looked normal to them. It seems like
it has been the one too many climate change post recently and that some people
got annoyed and flagged it because of that. What a pity.

------
slips
Accepting the fact that we're just like any other animal on this planet,
merely along for the ride until the day we're done, will help curb the rage
and grief felt towards the planet's reformation.

This is just what happens here. Species rise and fall, lands rise and sink,
yet the Earth spins on until some other shit starts to happen on the surface.
We just happened to fuck it up for ourselves faster. Humans have been good at
that since day one.

------
20150327ASG
And yet the terrible truth of the Methane Hydrate - Permafrost feedback loop
is still being ignored. The arctic is already burning, exploding in some
areas.

------
AndrewKemendo
After reading the 2018 IPCC report for policymakers [1] the major thing I took
from it was this:

The stated impacts of further warming aren't grave enough to justify nations
taking the steps needed to mitigate them.

For example, the more immediate and impactful conclusions from the report are
these:

 _In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people,
assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and
extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution,
drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high
confidence)._

 _Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by
amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and
economic shocks (medium confidence)_

To which most readers would more or less shrug and move on because it's not
tangible what these general impacts look like and unclear why they couldn't be
mitigated or absorbed at the time of event.

Said another way, it would take a MASSIVE and unprecedented shift to the
average, and an increasing portion of the global populations way of living, to
slow warming significantly.

Namely, "to restrict global warming to 1.5°C, global ambition needs to
increase fivefold." That implies that the current state of the global economy
would effectively ground to a halt.

So what people hear is: We must completely change our lifestyles to prevent
some chaos somewhere unknown down the line. I think all of social science
tells us that humans are bad at this kind of long term planning.

The challenge here is that there is a huge gap between what is meant by
climate scientists with statements such as "the very foundation of human
civilisation is at stake" and what people can "touch and feel" making the
sense urgency seem overblown.

Even things like "Cyclone Tracy is a warning" fall flat because "there have
always been storms" and the causal relationship isn't direct - it's
statistical and that's not something that politicians and the public generally
can grok.

Contrast that with something like WWII which the US was staying largely
removed from, until Pearl Harbor happened. That was a direct, causally linked,
explicit and objective event that pushed an entire nation to change their
behavior - but it was also time limited.

I'm not sure what needs to happen, but my guess is that until there is a
"Pearl Harbor" for climate change, which I don't think is really possible,
very little substantial will be done.

[1]
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINA...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf)

------
bairrd
As Australia's "left wing" shift further right after their recent election
loss, and the most popular newpapers reflect a right wing Murdoch perspective
that seems to sell well, one which frequently decries any green party in
Australia as unreasonable, and the majority of political violence being
enacted by the right (e.g. the Australian shooter who flew to New Zealand and
killed 49 that was quickly moved on from, vs the "left" being repeatedly
berated for dumping milkshakes on politicians), is it reasonable to say that
we live in a deeply suicidal age? The will of the majority appears to me to be
deeply right-wing, and power, both through violence and politics, seems to be
permitted only if it is appropriately right-wing. Are we headed towards the
end of the human era due to a continued slide rightwards?

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological or political battle.

