Overshooting 1.5C Climate Target 'Inevitable': UN Chief (nzherald.co.nz)
- Reference: 0179857164
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/23/1445208/overshooting-15c-climate-target-inevitable-un-chief
- Source link: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/overshooting-15c-climate-target-inevitable-un-chief/UFZVQKQSSRAFBPWWGM5GFSS7HA/
> Before next month's COP30 climate summit in Brazil, Guterres said going beyond 1.5C would result in "devastating" yet predictable impacts. "One thing is already clear: we will not be able to contain the global warming below 1.5C in the next few years," Guterres said at the UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) weather and climate agency in Geneva.
>
> "Overshooting is now inevitable. Which means that we're going to have a period, bigger or smaller, with higher or lower intensity, above 1.5C in the years to come." However, if leaders start taking the problem seriously by driving towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions, "the 1.5 still remains -- according to all the scientists I met -- possible before the end of the century."
[1] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/overshooting-15c-climate-target-inevitable-un-chief/UFZVQKQSSRAFBPWWGM5GFSS7HA/
Inevitable (Score:2)
This was inevitable.
It was idiotic to proclaim 1.5 C as a target in the first place. I suppose that there are people who advocate for setting targets that won't be achieved, on the belief that this makes people try harder, but my thinking is that setting targets that won't be achieved only defeats the purpose, by conditioning people to give up.
There was never anything particular about the 1.5 C goal, other than that it's a conveniently round number. It's slightly worse than 1.4 C, slightly not as bad as 1.6
Re:Inevitable (Score:4, Informative)
On this page they identify 1.5C as the initial "tipping point" of specific bad things. There is a fairly wide uncertainty around that estimate, but it's considered the best estimate so in that sense it wasn't picked out of thin air.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
Re: (Score:2)
"There was never anything particular about the 1.5 C goal"
It was the agreed on as the point above which most island nations could see devastating long term harm and also a target that could be achieved in the near term but that was before crypto & AGI
[1]https://theconversation.com/1-... [theconversation.com]
[1] https://theconversation.com/1-5-c-where-the-target-came-from-and-why-were-losing-sight-of-its-importance-195745
Totally preventable if we went Nuclear (Score:1)
Yes, climate change was completely preventable if we properly pursued nuclear energy. Instead we burned fossil fuels instead.
Nuclear winter (Score:2)
No beef with nuclear power, but I have to say when I read that subject line, just by itself, my first thought was nuclear winter as an outcome of "if we went nuclear" that would certainly reduce average climate temperature trends.
Lets act like we are surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Human greed and capitalism will not stop for anything, we'll push the pedal to the metal
Re: (Score:2)
Not even
Under communism, once the decision is made to develop a resource, that is usually it. Anyone's objections reasonable or otherwise be damned.
At least under capitalism private ownership gives people some incentive to keep things they have 'nice' and resist policy that would deprive them of it, which they often successful can.
Look at the history of Russian Oil and gas, over the 20th century. Communism is most certainly NOT going to help the cause of saving the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
"Under communism, once the decision is made to develop a resource, that is usually it. Anyone's objections reasonable or otherwise be damned"
that's the case for authoritarian regimes whatever their perceived ideology
Re: (Score:2)
Greed capitalism like in the states gonna destroy the planet even further.
The middle, aka socialism, would be the best form.
But as a species we must start recycling our stuff. Massive reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and oil-plastic must just go.
Crap material that just pollutes and is about non-recyclable.
En go for efficiency, reduce our power needs across the board.
Re: Lets act like we are surprised (Score:3)
What especially galling is the fact that money is totally fake (we made it ourselves and its value is arbitrary) yet it is driving us to extinction in the form of low birth rates, pollution excuses, energy stupidity, etc. with the exception of a particular dog in South America, humans are the only creatures that need money.
A Rogue Country or Billionaire will save us (Score:3)
It is going to take a rouge country or billionaire to unilaterally initiate a geo-engineering program like stratospheric aerosol injection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection) to save us all. Pakistan is one of the counties suffering the most from global warming, so maybe they will crack and undertake this mission to save the rest of humanity from their own stupidity. The clock is ticking. Our warming atmosphere is already demonstrating positive feedback on natural methane production and within 70 years natural methane will overtake human contributions to global warming if we do not act quickly to prevent this scenario. At that point, if humanity wants a cooler planet, geo-engineering will be the only choice.
Re: A Rogue Country or Billionaire will save us (Score:2)
Stirring the pot that way will create unpredictable and likely horrifying side effects. Ask the people of Springfield.
Re: (Score:2)
Rouge country? Don't you mean a green country? :D
Re: (Score:3)
> It is going to take a rouge country or billionaire to unilaterally initiate a geo-engineering program like stratospheric aerosol injection to save us all...[snip]...At that point, if humanity wants a cooler planet, geo-engineering will be the only choice.
Easy there, Ted Faro. :) Join us in the real world. The "clawback" that worked in Horizon: Zero Dawn isn't going to work in real life. You can't fix a planetary crisis with money and some technology. The idea that one nation or tech mogul can single-handedly geoengineer us out of this mess is just hubris of the tech-bro variety. Stratospheric aerosol injection might look like salvation, but it’s just as likely to wreck monsoons, acidify oceans, and torch what’s left of our climate stability.
Re: (Score:2)
"collective effort, shared sacrifice, and the will to change before the biosphere collapses"
good luck selling that in the current political climate (pun intended)
Proposed solution (Score:2)
We should have the worlds wealthiest elites all get on their private jets and fly halfway around the globe to have a meeting to come up with a solution on how to reduce emissions. Our betters will solve this for us!
No change in hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
"Before next month's COP30 climate summit in Brazil, "
In which the sneering class will FLY in from all over the world to whine that the proles are not doing their part to protect the upper class's vacation destinations.
When they all arrive to a meeting by sailboat wake me up.
Bonus points for serving grass clippings and bugs at banquet.
Re: (Score:2)
Passenger jets are going to fly regardless if the handful of people from this summit were on them.
Re: (Score:2)
> Passenger jets are going to fly regardless if the handful of people from this summit were on them.
It's almost as if principle does not matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Last year, [1]45-65 private jets flew to COP29. [euronews.com] (A few might have been flying to...checks notes...Baku, Azerbaijan for other reasons.)
[1] https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to-fly-to-cop29-private-jet-use-soared-but-one-group-got-to-baku-overland
If they start taking it seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one with the power to do anything, will take it seriously, that's been proven over decades. There is no debate to be had about climate change, there wasn't decades ago, but at least for the last decade it's been absolutely irrefutable. I don't understand what anyone is hoping for any more, effectively those in power adopted an Agile / Lean methodology so they could act as if they were seeking progress, well, not doing anything, and feeling empowered.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day (Score:2)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The idiot-in-chief at the UN is correct, it is, and always was, inevitable that 1.5 will be exceeded, and that was before the AI fad. If the entire world had gone all in on nuclear for baseload and a whole bunch of other things (no airplanes for you, more than half of my CO2 budget is flying), then it might have been possible, but that was never going to happen.
Message from Scotland: (Score:1)
Thank you Lord, Oh Thank you Lord
p.s. any chance of 2.5C?
Huh? (Score:3)
"Which means that we're going to have a period, bigger or smaller, with higher or lower intensity"
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been stated thousands of times on slashdot already, but I guess it has not sunk in yet. Climate is not weather.
Climate is a long-term average over a large region. Weather is the specific conditions at one specific place at a given time.
You can predict the average value of, say, rolling two 6-sided dice a million times (average is 7), but that still won't tell you what you get on your next roll in a craps game. Averages are easier to predict than individual values.
Re: Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shh! Shh! It's OK. The climate change denying retard isn't going to listen anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
And the climate change shithead that thinks that we know what the average temperature of the planet was to a tenth of a degree in 1890 isn't going to listen anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it matter if our average temp for 1890 was off by a tenth of a degree?
Re: (Score:2)
>> The great thing about Climate Change is that no matter what the weather does they can find a computer model which predicted it. Warmer, colder, more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, there's always one model they can fall back on.
> The great thing about being a board-surf-ified professionally educated expert on anything-weather, is you can be more dead wrong than a doctor with a decade of training who's still "practicing". The only thing logically lower on the acceptable professional standards scale, is a whorehouse.
> Seriously. Pay attention to your weather apps. Compare them. Not only will they all manage to predict the next 12-24 hours differently in your local area, but they'll most likely be wrong enough you can hardly make outdoor plans more than 36 hours in advance. It's become quite pathetic given our technology. Can model a hurricane a week before it is one, but is still guessing at tomorrow afternoon.
Ask a farmer. They'll have a better chance at predicting the weather for the next couple weeks than any weatherman. At least older farmers who have been at it most of their lives. Why the computer nerds in weatherdom don't start by trying to figure out what the farmers already know is beyond me. Probably some bias against country folk, thinking them uneducated fools.
Models are beyond criticism at this point (Score:2)
Yes, there are hundreds of different climate models. An abundance of models is not evidence that there is no such thing as climate change.
The value of a model is in its predictive power. If a model can bound historical data then the next logical step is finding the bounds of future data. All models have a greater spread the future they look into the future, because that's just math as you stack on tolerances over a greater time. You add up the error when you're looking at the extremes, but you also find a
Re: (Score:2)
"Which means that we're going to have a period, bigger or smaller, with higher or lower intensity, above 1.5C in the years to come"
You cut off the conclusive part - we're going 1.5C above baseline. How much, being open in part to what we do now.