IPCC report 2021; analysis, discussion, and are we fucked?

[LDC]

Long awaited for and out today.

Full report here AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Have posted in the Feedback Forum that sadly I think we need a climate sub-forum now...

 

[SpookyFrank]

Long awaited for and out today.

Full report here AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Have posted in the Feedback Forum, sadly I think we need a climate sub-forum now...

I haven't read the report but I'd say yes, we're fucked. The massive fires we're now seeing in key regions like the Amazon and Siberia look a lot like the start of a runaway feedback loop that will rumble on quite happily even if everyone stops burning fossil fuels and every cow stops farting tomorrow.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The 'summary' version is currently just, 'test pdf, please replace'. Guess I'll have to read the whole thing then

e2a: Jesus christ it's 4000 pages.

 

[LDC]

The 'summary' version is currently just, 'test pdf, please replace'. Guess I'll have to read the whole thing then

e2a: Jesus christ it's 4000 pages.

Yeah, just downloading it, wondered why it was taking so long!

 

[SpookyFrank]

If CO2 emissions remain at current levels for the forseeable eventually declining to net zero by mid century, the report predicts an overall temperature increase of about 2.6 degrees from a 19th century baseline. That's an optimistic scenario in terms of likely changes in human behaviour.

The most optimistic scenario, a rapid switch to net-negative CO2 emissions, still leaves us with a temperature rise of about 1.5 degrees.

 

[SpookyFrank]

A key point they make is that every additional 0.1 degree (or whatever) of warming has an incrementally greater effect.

 

[danny la rouge]

I haven’t read it yet. Just saw reports and some of the press conference, but Greta Thunberg says:

 

[tommers]

We've known about this for decades. We're inherently unable to deal with it.

 

[andysays]

We've known about this for decades. We're inherently unable to deal with it.

It certainly looks that way - there have been UN agreements and protocols going back decades and while they may have made some difference, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the problem is out of control because the short-term impacts of making the necessary changes would be seen as unacceptable.

 

[RainbowTown]

I'd say yes, long term, we're probably screwed. This horse has bolted long before the stable door has been closed.

There's simply way too much world politics involved in this now; messy, conflicting and self-serving politics that has only added to the problem, not taken away from it. As well as that, there are those huge international conglomerates and businesses who simply do not and will not care enough, putting short term profit and power before all else (what's new there, huh?). And, of course, there is THE red herring that few want to acknowledge or engage with, let alone act upon,: human breeding and the ever increasing growth of populations all over this planet.

As a species we've long thought we've owned this planet as opposed to sharing it. Well our selfishness is coming home to roost. We're now starting to reap what we've sown.

For me, it's purely a case of containment now in the decades to come. Nothing more.

 

[danny la rouge]

We've known about this for decades. We're inherently unable to deal with it.

Well, “we” have been protesting and drawing attention to it for decades. But capital and governments say it’s all down to us not freezing bread.

 

[LDC]

We've known about this for decades. We're inherently unable to deal with it.

What do you mean inherently though? As humans generally, or as we exist and live now? Or something else? I don't think there's anything inevitable or inherent about it (aside from not being able to change the past), it's political choices made by governments and corporations.

 

[LDC]

...it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the problem is out of control because the short-term impacts of making the necessary changes would be seen as unacceptable.

Until they're not. Which is looking like that might be sooner than later. I think like the pandemic was dealt with in the UK we might see delay, not enough done, then suddenly panic and lots of change, but all coming too late to avoid devastation, but maybe soon enough to avoid the absolute worst.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'd say yes, long term, we're probably screwed. This horse has bolted long before the stable door has been closed.

There's simply way too much world politics involved in this now; messy, conflicting and self-serving politics that has only added to the problem, not taken away from it. As well as that, there are those huge international conglomerates and businesses who simply do not and will not care enough, putting short term profit and power before all else (what's new there, huh?). And, of course, there is THE red herring that few want to acknowledge or engage with, let alone act upon,: human breeding and the ever increasing growth of populations all over this planet.

As a species we've long thought we've owned this planet as opposed to sharing it. Well our selfishness is coming home to roost. We're now starting to reap what we've sown.

For me, it's purely a case of containment now in the decades to come. Nothing more.

In the long-run we're all dead
--keynes

 

[maomao]

Until they're not. Which is looking like that might be sooner than later. I think like the pandemic was dealt with in the UK we might see delay, not enough done, then suddenly panic and lots of change, but all coming too late to avoid devastation, but maybe soon enough to avoid the absolute worst.

If they leave it as late as they left the lockdown at the end of last year half the UK will be under water before they act.

 

[RainbowTown]

In the long-run we're all dead
--keynes

Try telling that to Keith Richards

 

[andysays]

Until they're not. Which is looking like that might be sooner than later. I think like the pandemic was dealt with in the UK we might see delay, not enough done, then suddenly panic and lots of change, but all coming too late to avoid devastation, but maybe soon enough to avoid the absolute worst.

I should probably have made it clear that I meant unacceptable to governments and business interests, rather than ordinary people.

The parallel with Covid is an interesting one. In the case of a pandemic, we can just about imagine what its effects might be if it's allowed to spread unchecked, so there was immediate and widespread outrage when Johnson effectively suggested we should do just that.

But I think the full scale of the consequences of global warming is still difficult for many people to get their heads around, and won't be appreciated until lots more devastation has already occurred, by which time far more has become inevitable.

 

[Flavour]

I haven't read the report but I'd say yes, we're fucked. The massive fires we're now seeing in key regions like the Amazon and Siberia look a lot like the start of a runaway feedback loop that will rumble on quite happily even if everyone stops burning fossil fuels and every cow stops farting tomorrow.

That is not a reason to not stop burning fossil fuels. 2 degrees warming still preferable to 3 degrees warming. 3 degrees warming still preferable to 4 degrees warming, and so on. Giving up on the idea that change is possible is the most morally-objectionable line to take.

 

[Flavour]

All these cunts blowing their billions on vanity projects need to be forced to invest all of their profits, which they stole from us, into carbon capture and renewable energy. We need protests several times larger what XR did in 2019, and not pacifist ones, if we are to stand any chance of influencing States to take the radical action required.

 

[Petcha]

Probably already being discussed but I think that the outrage over Alok Sharma flying around the world ahead of this conference was not really helpful. This is a hugely important conference. A lot of decisions at these kind of things are made far before the actual photocalls of world leaders at the event. I think I can accept his need for racking up some airmiles in trying to convince idiots like Bolsonaro in person. I'm not saying he's the ideal person for the job but having met the guy I know he does actually care.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That is not a reason to not stop burning fossil fuels.

I didn't say it was. It's clear from the report that continued growth of emissions vs a shift towards net negative emissions would have vastly different outcomes. Hence why I've put so much of my time into direct action on climate stuff down the years.

 

[SpookyFrank]

All these cunts blowing their billions on vanity projects need to be forced to invest all of their profits, which they stole from us, into carbon capture and renewable energy. We need protests several times larger what XR did in 2019, and not pacifist ones, if we are to stand any chance of influencing States to take the radical action required.

'Carbon capture' is a red herring and pretending otherwise does more harm than good IMO.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Probably already being discussed but I think that the outrage over Alok Sharma flying around the world ahead of this conference was not really helpful. This is a hugely important conference. A lot of decisions at these kind of things are made far before the actual photocalls of world leaders at the event. I think I can accept his need for racking up some airmiles in trying to convince idiots like Bolsonaro in person. I'm not saying he's the ideal person for the job but having met the guy I know he does actually care.

You met Bolsonaro?

 

[Petcha]

You met Bolsonaro?

No. Fortunately. But i've met Sharma a couple of times, online. he's ok as these kind of people go.

 

[andysays]

'Carbon capture' is a red herring and pretending otherwise does more harm than good IMO.

Can you expand on why you're saying carbon capture is a red herring?

 

[Flavour]

'Carbon capture' is a red herring and pretending otherwise does more harm than good IMO.

As it currently stands yes, carbon capture is inefficient and unrealistic. But I wouldn't abandon the idea of research into more effective methods.

 

[LDC]

Probably already being discussed but I think that the outrage over Alok Sharma flying around the world ahead of this conference was not really helpful. This is a hugely important conference. A lot of decisions at these kind of things are made far before the actual photocalls of world leaders at the event. I think I can accept his need for racking up some airmiles in trying to convince idiots like Bolsonaro in person. I'm not saying he's the ideal person for the job but having met the guy I know he does actually care.

Yeah that coverage annoyed me, just a variation on the personal choice / lifestyle change bollocks.

 

[Petcha]

Yeah that coverage annoyed me, just a variation on the personal choice / lifestyle change bollocks.

Travelling to 30 countries in 6 months presumably wasn't done for recreational purposes. I've just watched a plane full of athletes touch down at Heathrow in Tokyo to a hero's welcome. Bizarre.

 

[Flavour]

Personally I'd like to see a targeted campaign to sink the superyachts of the rich. The ports where they have to go periodically for maintenance are well known.

 

[glitch hiker]

I don't really see governments doing fuck all about this. The likes of the GOP and lunatics like Bolsanaro will simply deny the evidence and call this communism