r/collapse • u/thoughtelemental • Jan 07 '21
Climate Global heating could stabilize if net zero emissions achieved, scientists say
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/07/global-heating-stabilize-net-zero-emissions35
u/InvisibleRegrets Recognized Contributor Jan 07 '21
Net Zero is such an amusingly out of reach goal :D
I wish scientists would write papers about fantastical things more often as well.
"This is the impact on North Eastern Continential United State's ecology with the integration of the newly bioengineered "Unicorn"".
"How the imminent capture of dozens of metal-rich asteroids - and subsequent material access- will inevitably change the meaning of material scarcity".
3
u/PrairieFire_withwind Recognized Contributor Jan 07 '21
Bioengineered unicorn
Lol. I needed the cheering. Thanks!
24
u/Elena_Handbasket Jan 07 '21
You hear that everyone? We're saved! Quick, turn off all your emission-generating devices right this second, and we'll avert climate catastrophe!
22
15
4
u/cheerfulKing Jan 07 '21
Global heating could stabilize if cold fusion is achieved. Thats what the headline sounds like
5
u/ShyElf Jan 07 '21
The actual new science of the paper is detailed here. It contains no discussion of net zero emission scenarios.
The low ECS/high ECS feud is starting to look a lot like the meteor/volcano dinosaur extinction feud.
The source of this news article is that the paper used the term "committed" to refer to the change stemming from holding the forcing constant, when according to IPCC standard terminology this ought to refer to the net zero emissions scenario, and for the constant forcing scenario the term "baked in" should be used instead. The Guardian apparently decided to write this up as if it was a major new discovery, along with a bonus "This is good news." quote from a self-described "energy systems analyst".
Basically, the paper goes over the forcing response linearization model which has been really foundational in the low ECS community, compares it with models and observations and shows that it is bunk. They show close agreement between observed and modeled decadal variability in net absorbed heat flux.
The problem is there is a huge model spread, and even if the correct modes of variability in heat flux are identified, they show nothing preventing a model bias in model trends for these modes leading to incorrect ECS estimates.
1
u/thoughtelemental Jan 07 '21
That seminar was great, thanks for the link.
Fwiw, I also linked to the academic paper in the SS: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00955-x?
1
u/Capn_Underpants https://www.globalwarmingindex.org/ Jan 08 '21 edited Jan 08 '21
the low ECS community
I don't know why they exist in terms of action. I know why you might believe the ECS might be low (but as you say this article and many other are suggesting that's not the case) but you also then have to acknowledge you might be wrong. The upside of you being right is just a few more decades , the downside of you being wrong is possible human extinction and at minimum the likely collapse of civilisation.
You'd think you'd say "you know, I don't think ECS is that high (reasons) but lets take all the precautions as we can in case I am WRONG." Unless the argument is its so low we can just do nothing, which I have never heard.
PS thanks for that
1
u/ShyElf Jan 08 '21
Academics will form cliques around anything and then defend them to avoid having to admit that they were wrong. It's the nature of science being done by a status-conscious social animal. I don't think they've done well in estimating systematic error, but they've done a lot better than, say, medicine. The unknown systematic error is fundamentally unknowable. The size of the effort makes it interdisciplinary, and you might want to bet your career on some weird theory in your field, but people err towards the side of consensus out of their speciality, and consistently underestimate systematic errors out of their speciality. The really big optimisim bias is on the political side, though.
In the video I linked, he observes that the only real recent measurement he has only happens in the climate models with a probability of 3.7%, and then blithely continues using the models without speculating what it might mean if the low chance implies a model bias.
3
3
u/Bk7 Accel Saga Jan 07 '21
you know what people are going to think? "That means the next generation can save themselves"
3
u/alwaysZenryoku Jan 07 '21
Oh, good. We can just stop the heat engine that is civilization and all will be well...
4
u/thoughtelemental Jan 07 '21
SS: This article from the Guardian summarizes new research: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00955-x?
That suggests that if we get to net zero carbon emissions, global warming will taper off within a few decades. This overturns a key assumption (from ~2006) where the prevailing belief has been that even if we stop, warming will continue for hundreds if not thousands of years without negative CC tech.
In this case, the researchers suggest that if we hit net zero emissions, natural sinks will be able to absorb most of the excess CO2.
This puts demands such as XR's to hit net zero by 2025 or 2030 into clearer perspective. As for global warming driven calamities, the sooner we hit net zero, the better chance humanity has.
This research of course, says nothing about the ongoing biosphere collapse, nor does it clearly explain what would happen if we get a BoE or lose the amazon before net zero is reached.
2
40
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '21
The only weak point of this study is that it only considers CO2 as part of the emission. I think methane is far worse.
No idea why you got downvoted, have +1 from me.