As I understand it Venus is kinda locked in anyway at this point, halting all fossil fuel burning with nothing to mitigate the damage we've caused just roasts us faster because the exhaust literally blocks a bunch of sunlight
It's not quite that bad. 2-3° is probably locked in (barring sci-fi technology like large scale carbon capture), but not the kind of runaway that would lead to Venus. You're right about aerosol masking hiding a lot of the impact, but that damage will be very front-loaded (since the residence time of the aerosols in the atmosphere is only on the order of months), and limited to probably a few tenths of a degree. Not nothing, but not enough for us to go Venus.
Could the old climate be restored over several generations using some large scare application of some future technology? After a rapid transition away from the carbon energy economy. I guess there is a lot of speculative coping in this question.
I used to very much share that fear until someone sat me down and explained that even in the absolute worst case scenarios we're not going to get a hothouse earth situation. Still plenty to worry about, but multi-cellular life will probably survive no matter what we do.
I'm right their with you. I find the "eh, the earth will be fine" response many people have when i bring up global warming bizarre and upsetting. I am heartened that even if we're not able to mitigate this, there will still be life and with life, hope. A lot of what we do as leftists is trying to create good conditions for people who will come after us and never know our names. But I want to save this world. I want to stop the sixth great extinction. I want to try to save the amazon and the pacific northwest and many other places of beauty and splendor.
It is good that the world will survive, but the world that survives will be all the better if we struggle and mitigate the damage now.
Yeah. I kinda freaked out over the summer reading the posts. We just gotta live life and hope whoever comes after us learns from our mistakes. Maybe someone will build something from the rubble like Matt said.
In some ways yes, but in other ways we'll just have to find a new equilibrium. The extent to which this is fixable really depends on how many "tipping points" we've passed over. Lots of systems in the global climate are (at least) bistable, meaning they have at least two dynamical regimes that they can settle into--think two bowls separated by a high wall, with a ball rolling around in one of them. Since different stable states exist, if we push the relevant systems far enough, they'll "snap" into a qualitatively different state, and then won't return to their original state even if the forcings all return to pre-industrial levels. There are a number of big ones that we should be concerned about, but the global thermohaline circulation that drives ocean currents is probably the most obvious and urgent one. With enough of a disruption, the gradients of temperature and salinity (and thus changes in density) that keep the water stably circulating in the oceans can and will either disappear or change enough that most significant currents cease. It's hard to overstate how catastrophic that would be, and if it were to happen no amount of negative emissions would restart it in the short term.
For other systems, rapidly reducing the GHG content of the atmosphere would (almost) certainly work. That's part of why liberals are so gung-ho about carbon capture and sequestration technology research: it would let us rewind things without having to change much about our global economic system in the immediate term. So far, this is as sci-fi as saying "time travel would help." Capturing a trace gas (remember that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are on the order of 400 parts per million) is thermodynamically challenging, and we don't have anything like the technology to do this at scale for a reasonable cost of energy yet.
So the liberals are selling us a panacea that does not even exist to solve problems that should have been addressed a long time ago. Idk, I feel exhausted saying that. I need to start learning a lot more on this topic myself.
Thank you for your informed responses. I appreciate you helping all of us here understand this grave issue which is criminally neglected by the capitalist powers that be.
It's not quite that bad. 2-3° is probably locked in (barring sci-fi technology like large scale carbon capture), but not the kind of runaway that would lead to Venus. You're right about aerosol masking hiding a lot of the impact, but that damage will be very front-loaded (since the residence time of the aerosols in the atmosphere is only on the order of months), and limited to probably a few tenths of a degree. Not nothing, but not enough for us to go Venus.
Could the old climate be restored over several generations using some large scare application of some future technology? After a rapid transition away from the carbon energy economy. I guess there is a lot of speculative coping in this question.
It'll fix itself over the next few tens of thousands of years, but obviously that doesn't help us at all.
From what I understand there isn't a model that suggests the earth becoming un-inhabitable by complex life no matter how bad we fuck up right now.
The sharks will be fine. They're older than Polaris. They got this shit.
Well, that's at least comforting. Any Venus model would probably push quite a few people into an existential crisis. Thank you for your response.
I used to very much share that fear until someone sat me down and explained that even in the absolute worst case scenarios we're not going to get a hothouse earth situation. Still plenty to worry about, but multi-cellular life will probably survive no matter what we do.
great, but I'm still worried about my life
I'm right their with you. I find the "eh, the earth will be fine" response many people have when i bring up global warming bizarre and upsetting. I am heartened that even if we're not able to mitigate this, there will still be life and with life, hope. A lot of what we do as leftists is trying to create good conditions for people who will come after us and never know our names. But I want to save this world. I want to stop the sixth great extinction. I want to try to save the amazon and the pacific northwest and many other places of beauty and splendor.
It is good that the world will survive, but the world that survives will be all the better if we struggle and mitigate the damage now.
Yeah. I kinda freaked out over the summer reading the posts. We just gotta live life and hope whoever comes after us learns from our mistakes. Maybe someone will build something from the rubble like Matt said.
In some ways yes, but in other ways we'll just have to find a new equilibrium. The extent to which this is fixable really depends on how many "tipping points" we've passed over. Lots of systems in the global climate are (at least) bistable, meaning they have at least two dynamical regimes that they can settle into--think two bowls separated by a high wall, with a ball rolling around in one of them. Since different stable states exist, if we push the relevant systems far enough, they'll "snap" into a qualitatively different state, and then won't return to their original state even if the forcings all return to pre-industrial levels. There are a number of big ones that we should be concerned about, but the global thermohaline circulation that drives ocean currents is probably the most obvious and urgent one. With enough of a disruption, the gradients of temperature and salinity (and thus changes in density) that keep the water stably circulating in the oceans can and will either disappear or change enough that most significant currents cease. It's hard to overstate how catastrophic that would be, and if it were to happen no amount of negative emissions would restart it in the short term.
For other systems, rapidly reducing the GHG content of the atmosphere would (almost) certainly work. That's part of why liberals are so gung-ho about carbon capture and sequestration technology research: it would let us rewind things without having to change much about our global economic system in the immediate term. So far, this is as sci-fi as saying "time travel would help." Capturing a trace gas (remember that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are on the order of 400 parts per million) is thermodynamically challenging, and we don't have anything like the technology to do this at scale for a reasonable cost of energy yet.
So the liberals are selling us a panacea that does not even exist to solve problems that should have been addressed a long time ago. Idk, I feel exhausted saying that. I need to start learning a lot more on this topic myself.
Thank you for your informed responses. I appreciate you helping all of us here understand this grave issue which is criminally neglected by the capitalist powers that be.