[staltz]

Interesting tool. It basically says you can:

- Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy

- Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology

- Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry

- Reduce population growth

- Reduce economic growth

- Reduce deforestation

- Increase afforestation

For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120...

OR you can do these three things:

- Set a high price on carbon

- Reduce emissions of methane and other gases

- Increase usage carbon removal technologies

for a similar effect of +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p39=25...

All optimistic actions combined puts us at +1.0C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120...

[rwc]

There comes a point where the model no longer accepts any progress beyond a +1.0C increase. No matter how many additional actions taken, the floor is +1.0C. It seems the immediate extinction of the human race would still result in an increase in temperature. Is there research that backs this up?

[zamadatix]

Remember this is relative to temperature at the start of the graph (2000) not 2020.

But yes, there is a delay between "stop producing emissions" and "temperature starts going down". CO2 is already high, simply stopping additional output doesn't make the current amount go away overnight and there is still plenty of ice to melt over the seasons in the meantime.

[DennisP]

Specifically there's a delay of 10 to 30 years between releasing CO2 and getting the full temperature increase from it, just like there's a delay between turning on a stove burner and boiling water in a pot.

On top of that simple heating time, there are feedback effects like melting permafrost releasing additional greenhouse gases, and (as you mentioned) melting ice reducing the planetary albedo.

[esotericn]

The anomaly is already approximately 1 degree C.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Gl...

[Dumblydorr]

Its basic physics. We have more heat trapping gasses literally all around us, in our very air. This will cause less snow and ice cover, meaning less reflectivity, meaning more warming where there used to be ice.

The polar regions will be decimated even if we manage to save ourselves.

[marcosdumay]

It has a ~10x growth on energy usage until 2080 backed in, you can increase it to ~15x or decrease it to ~8x, but nothing else. The only way to reasonably decrease it is growing energy efficiency, the population and GDP growth settings do not change enough to make a difference.

The ramp-up and total of renewables have an unrealistic low ceiling. No matter what, one can not get a clean exponential growth until they dominate the electricity generation, and the only way to make them actually dominate the generation is to destroy every fossil fuel capacity (that last one is highly not realistic).

Fossil fuels are assumed to be available on unlimited amounts. One can simulate their limits, but it takes a lot of care about the integral of the curves. Honestly, I think that the idea that we can double the production of any one that is not coal highly unrealistic.

Technological carbon capture is hilariously underpowered. For a slide that represents "stuff people may invent", it looks like they do not accept anything that wasn't invented yet.

On the other side, they completely ignored all of the huge natural methane reserves around the Earth. If you imagined you could simulate the ocean methane hydrates volatilizing on some rate, well, tough luck.

Overall, it's a restricted simulator around the "business as usual" analysis people do on climate. It is highly unreasonable to expect business to stay as usual for a century, but analysis is tippicaly done that way because there is no better baseline to use. A simulator does not have this restriction, so imposing it by parameter limits is unsettling.

[dluan]

We're already well into the anthropocene: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

[11235813213455]

There is research that found the massive local population extinction after America conquest was linked to the planet cooling in that period, so I'm quite sure reducing human population either literally (by limiting growth) or virtually (by reducing consumerism/consumption, which is the key for limiting pollution) or both! will help a lot

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973

[adultSwim]

Genociding multiple continents isn't exactly a model I want to follow. "Population control" will continue to be Nazi-speak as long as it applies primarily to post-colonial countries, which while having high birth rates, also contributed minimally to CO2 emissions.

[11235813213455]

birth-control should be globally enforced nowadays (don't know how, but it just must be since the vast majority of people have an environmental footprint way too big), as the state of environmental problems is serious. Along with other levers to ease this climate crisis

[jellicle]

The immediate extinction of the human race would result in a significant temperature increase; we've already baked that in, today, and it would have to play out. Probably a full degree C over what we have now (which is +0.84C).

The maximum model settings are for something better: the human race stays around but contributes very little additional CO2 and instead starts making real efforts to remove the CO2 we've already added.

[ForHackernews]

There's a lot of CO2 already released into the atmosphere. Barring the invention and immediate global-scale deployment of as-yet nonexistent carbon capture technologies, there's a certain amount of temperature rise that we've already baked in.

[345218435]

guess what. all other climate changes in earth‘s history happened w/o humans. plants need at least 150ppm co2. they flourish with more. we‘re pumping co2 into green houses to make shit grow. we are at around 400ppm and had 1200ppm in the past, no problem. now these folks run around headless wanting to lower it further. complete mindlessness.

global average temperature is a joke. the earth‘s climate consists of many, many little subclimates making it so that everywhere you need a different weather forecast that often doesn‘t even hold up. it‘s a system nobody can actually simulate.

the other question is how do you deal with measurement errors today — and back in the day when they used quicksilver? quicksilver deviates by at least 1 degree. have the scales been correct? was the person reading the temperature looking at the thermometer correctly?

it‘s all bullcrap based on error prone data, nicely „normalized“ and „corrected“ every year because their whishful predictions don‘t work out.

climate „scientists“ are gonna tell you they cannot explain the entire climate system, yet they give you nice animations scaring the heck out of you. and that‘s all there is: scare. you‘ll happily pay ridiculous prices for ridiculous co2 certificates and that revenue goes into private pockets.

i whish everybody would scale back and throw themselves into the topic. but everybody i talk to just shuts down and elects to follow their church.

water and co2 are the most important ingredients for life. nobody is going to die because of it. don‘t let yourselves be fooled.

disclaimer: yeah, i‘m receiving millions from the oil and coal industries. BILLIONS even!

[madacol]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[madacol]

The tooltip on top of the Image is just genius. "[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before."

[345218435]

xkcd. what a great and representative resource... for the sheepish alarmist hn crowd.

it‘s the same hockey stick bull crap that gore used to make you cry.

all the models normalize the raw data into oblivion and all the models are not properly adjusted to preindustrialization fluctuation of the climate. also, the models being used have been developed to understand current data and co2-influences — not to extrapulate predictions.

[zamadatix]

It makes sense, setting a high price on carbon is like lowering one end of the teeter totter vs raising the other for everything listed - the same thing just spelled out different ways.

[zackees]

We are at a very warm part of a very long cold trend. The idea that human increases in CO2 is a bad thing is completely divorced from historical observation.

The earth has been much hotter than it is now and at the hot parts was peak life here on the Earth. Additionally, the climate models by the IPCC omit the effect of the Solar wind's effect on the thermosphere. If this was included, then many of the climate models would be saying the following: "the Sun got hotter, the Earth and all the planets in the solar system followed."

Conversely, the sun has entered into an unusually cold period, signified by a lack of solar spots these last few years. NASA confirmed this in 2017 when they announced that the Sun had entered into a Solar minima and would continue.

The Farmers Almanac also confirmed this with predictions that there would be extensive rain that would destroy crops. This prediction panned out and for a great summary of the crop failures going on around the world you can follow "Ice Age Farmer" on YouTube. Ice Age farmer was calling out extensive cold a year ago and now it's happening.

Given the full history of the Earth's temperature, it would make sense for world leaders to come to an agreement to dig up as much locked up carbon in the ground as possible, remove the impurities and then clean burn it - simply to get the CO2 back into the atmosphere where it belongs so that we avert a future DEVASTATING ICE AGE.

Hopefully one day the "Global Warming" hysteria will be taught in schools as an example of how a mass of people can be deceived. Much in the same way that "flat-earth" was commonly accepted as reality in Spain prior to 1492, and peak oil was pushed in the 1970's and beyond.

[mturmon]

All of my climate researcher friends have stopped reading "The Farmers Almanac" and have flocked to "The Old Farmers Almanac", which has a much more rigorous peer review process, and better impact factor. (/s)

[marcosdumay]

You can do anything, as long as it is not much different from what we do today.

[lcam84]

We should set the economic growth to less than zero but odly it only can be set between 1.7% and 3.7%.

Sadly we can image the end of the world but not the end of capitalism