37
James Hansen explains that CO2 climate sensitivity is much worse than the numbers decision makers are using (www.columbia.edu)
submitted 6 months ago by collapse_already@lemmy.ml to c/collapse@lemmy.zip
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hansen and team's research finds climate sensitivity is at least 4.5C for a doubling of CO2 with 99% certainty. Too bad COPS is using 3.0 like it is gospel. For some perspective, the CO2 baseline is around 285, and we're up to 425 (we're only 145 away from doubling and that's ignoring increases in fun things like methane and nitrous oxide). The amount to get to the doubled value is roughly the increase we have experienced in my lifetime, so it is not as far away as it might seem.

I guess I should invest in air conditioned farming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

In section 5, this part is pretty grim:

The Secretary General of the United Nations asserts that the goal of keeping global warming under 1.5°C is still reachable if nations increase their ambitions for future emission reductions.

In reality, the 1.5°C goal has long been deader than a doornail.** This raises the question: are we, the scientific community, doing an adequate job of informing governments and the public?

He's saying that 1.5 hasn't been reachable for a very long time and yet that delusional narrative is still out there at the highest levels.

This raises the question of why? What's really going on where the society isn't facing up to this?

[-] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

It is an interesting question. When I look at the data, the RCP 8.5 scenario looks like the closest fit, but people insist that it is unrealistic and off the table. Is it some sort of cognitive dissonance defense mechanism?

The "planners" seem to be factoring in carbon capture technology that is not yet extant and that may never be extant.

[-] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 4 points 6 months ago

In the IPCC reports, Carbon Capture +Storage is a fairly significant variable.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers-1.pdf

Under heading #19

  1. In most scenarios for stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations between 450 and 750 ppmv CO2 and in a least-cost portfolio of mitigation options, the economic potential23 of CCS would amount to 220– 2,200 GtCO2 (60–600 GtC) cumulatively, which would mean that CCS contributes 15–55% to the cumulative mitigation effort worldwide until 2100, averaged over a range of baseline scenarios.

15% at the low end and 55% at the high end. And we haven't developed this technology or begun to scale it yet.

I think it's almost like Ponzi scheme accounting where your books balance as long as you get new investment in the future. We are planning on overshooting the carbon in the atmosphere and then doing negative emissions at some point later in the century.

[-] Anarchitect@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 months ago

we live with scientifically illterate and psycopathic elites

[-] Tm12@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

No proof but I would wager Oil and Gas has spent a lot on propaganda.

[-] Anarchitect@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago

its people unable to grip with harsh realities or its people trying to deceive the world for their own short term interests

[-] hanrahan@piefed.social 1 points 6 months ago

Glenn Peters used to bang on about 8.5 being impossible, not sure if he still is ? I am only on Mastodon and Piefed/Lemmy, i think he's bluesky and X only?

this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)

collapse

334 readers
10 users here now

Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
eleitl@lemmy.zip
BurnRate@lemmy.zip
Anarchitect@lemmy.zip