At this point I just assume we are pretty much fucked. Even if we reached zero emissions today we'd still be suffering the consequences of climate change for centuries.
Chances are humans will be a blip after all? It’s amazing to me that we humans usually wait till the shit hits the fan before we do something about it. It must be some kind of evolutionary advantage inducing strategy in our behavior.
I agree on principle, but OTOH you have the IPCC working by consensus and being too conservative in their conclusions. Also working with data that is years old since their process is slow.
For example, we've known about feedbacks for a very long time.
> Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for his work on depletion of the ozone layer, said: “The IPCC report demonstrates that it is still possible to keep the climate relatively safe, provided we muster an unprecedented level of cooperation, extraordinary speed and heroic scale of action. But even with its description of the increasing impacts that lie ahead, the IPCC understates a key risk: that self-reinforcing feedback loops could push the climate system into chaos before we have time to tame our energy system, and the other sources of climate pollution.”
Big media and some governments mostly listen to what the IPCC says so their responsibility is immense.
1. Lower the quality of living for a huge amount of humanity
2. Have massive technological breakthroughs
3. Embark on large scale geo-engineering
Europe and the US are only ~25% of all emissions and the rest of the world is increasing at a staggering rate.
Bonus! Give everyone 6 months holiday a year because humanity has more crap than it's ever needed but not enough time.
I mean, how much lower is that? I wouldn't mind it.
We need to stop assuming that our current level of wealth is somehow the apex of progress: it categorically is not
Not having kids is probably the biggest contribution one can do for the environment, specially on countries with very high emissions per capita such as the US.
It would probably get crowded and quite hot in the future, but we'll manage without eugenics and not having kids, or having just one kid, which was tried before in China and was a failure.
This 1PW of heat would need to disperse somewhere else.
Compare the climate at the arctic circle in Norway/Sweden to Canada.
The Arctic itself is very asymmetrical as a result.
Who said it doesn't? It absolutely does, that's one of the reason why the east coast is warmer than equivalent (as of latitude) areas in Europe are (plus other effects on the weather there).
This even shows a cold pocket of water by northern Florida.
The main complication is that prevailing weather tends to move west-to-east (because of the Coriolis force at typical U.S. latitudes), which means the east coast gets more continental air masses from Canada and the Plains than oceanic air masses. But compare Boston to Chicago, NYC to Kansas, or Washington D.C. to Colorado. All of the former are at higher latitudes, but tend to have milder temperatures than the latter. (Some of this is due to the moderating effect of water in general, but winters in coastal Boston are generally milder than in Chicago despite the latter also being on water and at a lower latitude.)
A good take on what we should be doing, even now. Well worth a watch of the whole 2 programme mini series - just forgive the late 80s CGI. :)
Humans do not do well with long-term threats in which we have to make everyday sacrifices. We do better with long-term threats that are clear economic opportunities, such as buying better airport scanners and the like, something the sales guys can really sink their teeth into.
In the list of posible benefits is the "instantaneous" recovery of submarine kelp forests vanished in the last decades
Fun to think about: maybe it's happened before after a similar industrial era, buried far below. (Unlikely but conceivable.)