The canary in the coalmine for global warming is Arctic sea ice. It is melting at an alarming rate, and we can expect an ice-free (>1m sq km of sea ice) Arctic in the summer within a decade or two (or 3-4 years if recent trends continue!). There's a small active community who follow this. We tend to hang out here - a HN level of polite discussion goes on: http://neven1.typepad.com/
There's a spin-off forum neven moderates (well, sometimes):
forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/board,3.0.html
It's a bit slow in the freezing season, even this completely out of control one, and can often degenerate into ridiculous arguments between a few posters.
But just in case... if there's any Sea Ice geeks in SF, I'd love to talk about it in person!
So what happens to the indigenous population of animals (polar bears are the first that come to my mind) when this happens? Do they just die out or are there groups trying to get them to safety?
well fortunately the Antarctic is gaining mass, so things happen. We are still only 12k years out an ice age and learning as we go. Natural variability is quite boring so it doesn't make headlines as much as it should.
the real reality is that the Paris agreement is a horrid piece of do nothing legislation that lets the major developing powers do what they want all the while getting the nod of acceptance from the UN because of the hundred billion dollar payout. Basically we have what is a one time voluntary agreement to pay out to certain groups so that developing countries can continue to pollute provided they plan to eventually slow it
It's too bad Americans cannot vote for some of the most prominent cabinet members the way they vote for President/Vice-President. Many of these appointees will have a more direct impact on people's lives but yet they have no say in who will represent them. Democracy?
For those who want to ask obvious follow up question, based on Wikipedia article on Mr. Ebell:
Through CEI, Ebell has stated his belief that global warming is a hoax, that most of the data predicting climate change is false, and that the scientific consensus was "phony".
However it is a top priority for the pentagon. Since Trump is the kind of guy that adopts the position of the last person he spoke to, one hopes the pentagon will step up their game and scare him into taking the drastic measures needed.
Trump supporters are usually the most vocal opponents to the climate change campaign, but like all people they will perform mental gymnastics to agree with their champion for a linited amount of time.
Through that (albeit ridiculously optimistic) lens, it's a golden opportunity.
What will convince leaders and the American masses of climate change? I'm afraid that they won't accept it until its effects smacks them in the face, twice.
I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation:
What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do?
He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to keep out southern populations fleeing extreme heat. But he'd keep the border with Canada open, so Americans can flee there if they need to. The oceans will protect us from the rest of the world.
He'd disentangle us from overseas treaty obligations that might draw us into wars we wouldn't otherwise want to fight. And he'd focus international relations on the few biggest countries who are most likely to secure and defend their own societies.
He'd incentivize U.S. companies to manufacture domestically: long supply chains are a risk.
He'd ramp up infrastructure spending--particularly on the coasts--to be ready to build sea walls and other mitigating structures.
He'd strengthen law enforcement to deal with internal unrest.
Like I said, I don't actually believe this...
EDIT: Another (and perhaps more likely) way to look at this is that Trump and his posse are just paranoid nuts, but by ignoring global warming, they will inadvertently bring about the global calamity that they fear.
No one has a solution for climate change that doesn't involve changing personal habits. People don't want to do that. Eating less meat or a carbon tax (i.e taxing the working poor) is not a solution. It's admitting defeat.
People don't need to "believe in climate change". We simply need to build a solution that is much better than what they have available now. What that solution is? Plenty of ideas, no one has a clue how to execute them.
The current strategy for the left is: let's see how guilty we can make people feel about their consumption habits and scare them with far distant consequences.
Talk about funding "green"/eco-friendly businesses which barely make a difference and try to sell people on carbon tax.
For the right, the strategy is: deny, deny, deny. Double down on economic growth and hope innovation follows.
Of course, "hope and dreams" sells. Admitting defeat wouldn't get you elected. The rhetoric is adjusted accordingly.
recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects
I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?
I like and upvoted your comment for the discussion and thought it encourages. However, realistically speaking it's extremely unlikely that Trump thinks like that. All the evidence points towards him being extremely incompetent, even completely misunderstanding the extent of the office he's been elected for. He's not the guy to pull off smart conspiracies.
The clearest evidence for this is his repeated emphasis on increasing the use of coal and oil. Even if you believe massive global upheaval of societies can no longer be avoided, burning more coal and oil is still going to hurt you.
I like that the theory has to assume that Canada is just naturally expected to take in American refugees while Mexico can go screw itself. With such ignorant American exceptionalism it's no wonder why we haven't fixed global warming yet.
No, Trump is not the God-Emperor of Mankind and does not possess century-level prescience. You can totally make a decent science fiction novel out of this, though.
> But he'd keep the border with Canada open, so Americans can flee there if they need to.
See, this kind of loopy apocalypse-mongering is why you guys are having such a hard time persuading average voters that your cause is legit. Under what possible worst-case scenario are Americans going to need to "flee" to Canada? Is that one-foot ocean rise over the next hundred years going to flood the United States all the way to Grand Forks?
It's an interesting theory but I doubt he has looked that far ahead. What you have laid out would be something more along the lines of US Strategic Thinking for the next 100 years.
The one thing most folks over look is how far are we ready to go to protect America? Global warming will unleash the largest migration the world has ever seen. There will be more than 2.5 billion people trying to escape somewhere more hospitable. You will have millions showing up on your shores from the far reaches of the world. An example is the 400 Sri Lankans that showed up in a boat off the coast of British Columbia 3 years ago. What to do? At some point there could be a million people showing up on the shores of North America (US/Canada) every month, can you imagine the chaos.
I do. At any rate, I do in the case of world leaders and the actions of states over the last decades. Or at any rate I'd like to believe I do.
Virtually everything has been consistent with preparing for the worst case climate disaster. You might think that if we knew it was unavoidable it might comprise protecting populations in cities and so-forth by building huge coastal works, or moving populations, or other such huge projects, but were you to do something so overt you would instill mass panic and bring about a preemptive disaster. No. You would play a very subtle hand.
You would tighten border security, and normalise surveillance and the idea of searches, scans, and armed police.
You would instill a fear of refugees and migrants - this makes it far easier down the line when we hear how many hundreds of millions are in "temporary accommodation". They're far off. They're different to us. Callousness is a survival attribute, if the suddenly popular zombie horror and post apocalyptic genres tell us anything.
You'd saturate popular media with programmes in favour of securitised states, and which deal with unmanageable mindless hordes that need mowing down for the greater good.
You'd engage in wars which build a security apparatus and provide a distraction, while simultaneously feeding your black budgets for the preservation of the, hm, economically and socially valuable sectors of society and technology.
You hold hope around the idea of escape to another world to keep those whom might act problematically mollified until it's too late.
In your end game you start moving your population. Again, you don't want it done in chaotic panic, so you do it piecemeal. A move to the political right, you send your liberal elite scarpering to new climes, and while they're at it they pick places that they think will be mitigated against climate change because they think it might be a problem in their lives. A bit of civil unrest, more leave. Start a war. People flee. People die. Those without the means to flee get left behind - remember that desensitisation bit, and the whole concentrating upwards of wealth - if you wanted to design a system that would leave the majority of humanity unempowered and in the lurch if it all gets climatic, but give the "economically productive elite" a fire escape, you'd build it like what we have today.
I don't actually believe this either (although it would almost be comforting to, as it provides an explanation of sorts for the world), but I do wonder what home truths made Obama want to jump after his security briefings eight years ago - and that DoD report from a while back about the defence (civil and national) implications of climate change revealed a sobering level of thought has already gone into some rather dire possibilities.
It's a fairly crap hypothesis as one can't readily prove or disprove it.
My worry is that Trump doesn't deny it (well he does publicly), but rather privately realizes that it's already far too late. There's nothing we can do, collapse of global civilization before mid-century is probably inevitable. So what can you do, well ramp up every dirty trick you can think off … because it doesn't really matter and it makes you look good with the public (sorry to say, it does, climate change is still not popular in public discourse).
To stay within the 1.5 to 2ºC bounds, the IPCC already includes massive carbon sequestering technologies in even its most simple recommendations. This is technology that does not exist.
We're betting life on Earth (and truly, it is that dire) on tech that might be impossible to build and scale. Even if we reduce our carbon emissions to 0 today the delayed effects and non-linear dynamics are so poorly understood, that it could very well be that nothing truly can be done to avoid our mass extinction. And, this too goes for carbon sequestering; even if we magically suck the last 5 decades of carbon out of the air, some stuff that is broken can't be fixed. Thresholds, catastrophes, oscillations, bifurcations, etc are real. We really have to think in non-linear systems when dealing with climate, and that is something we're very bad at. Especially when it comes to the media-voter complex.
But picture this, you are driving your car down some road, and everything is fine. You're minding your own business. There's nobody else there, so what the heck, let's ramp up some of the speed. And you go faster and faster. Until bam, unexpected steep corner, your car flies off the road and you die. At that point going back a couple of miles is never going to fix you. It's too late.
By all reports, Trump can't stay focused on any one thing more than a few minutes, whether it was 20 years ago talking to reporters, people working for him, whatever. So he's not likely to be the person who will care about a long term, non-immediate risk.
I still can't believe someone like him can be president. If Jeb Bush had won, I would have been a little disappointed, but I would have gone to sleep and not worried that much about it. But he's terrifying. Maybe he'll just be unable to accomplish anything, so he will self-block, doing as much as obama with republican congress. More likely is he won't be in touch and pence can do whatever he wants.
> According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge.
How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians will follow.
Perhaps if Trump can bring back more industry to the US, he is on his way to helping already.
I'm confused with this statement but I'll try to clear up something you seem to be missing.
1) China is already convinced. It's in the article. They are the world-leading user of solar power and are pushing harder than anyone to get away from dirty power.
2) Trump wants to push and invest in dirty power. He wants to significantly increase the production of coal and gas. The very stuff that causes global warming. Convincing Trump is about saving the world from itself. If Trump has his way, the last 20 years of progress towards renewable energy will be wiped out, with a strong possibility of making life very difficult for humanity in the next 50 - 100 years.
We (the US) are in a good position to lead the renewables industry, and part of that is dogfooding what we make. But that dogfooding is harder if our domestic nonrenewable prices are low. Yes that means that, for now, those products aren't fully competitive. But they could get there with scale, and we get that scale by rolling them out domestically. It helps us build this industry in the long term.
China is also jumping on this opportunity, by the way. I saw an article recently that competitive solar will be a big focus point for its electronics industry.
As far as building renewables is concerned both countries are currently doing their share. But that trend needs to accelerate and at the same time fossil sources need to be scaled back. Trump's statements on energy policy are mostly contrary to the latter part.
The conclusion of this article is not that global warming is dangerous but that local air pollution is bad for public health: "According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr. Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge."
Why should Donald Trump worry about local air pollution in Beijing? This has nothing to do with climate change. I highly doubt Donald Trump thinks thick smog is a good thing.
It's mentioned at the end of the article but it's not the main message. The reason it's mentioned is to give the argument why China will have to reduce their own emissions, no matter what other countries do. Then it concludes that Trump should understand the same that China has to understand: "Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet."
I've read interesting post couple of days ago about Global Warming on reddit:
"Hey guys this research isn't really finding out anything that wasn't already known. RCP 8.5 scenario, which they assumed in their modelling, has long been known to be effectively Armageddon. Any temperature rise past 5.5 degrees is probably irrelevant because there wont be any humans left to deal with that outcome.
However it's looking increasingly likely that we aren't on the RCP 8.5 pathway. RCP 8.5 calls for steady continued growth in emissions of around 3%+ per year, which is what we were on in the early part of this decade. The last three years emissions have been effectively flat in spite of ongoing economic growth, and the Paris pledges that will keep warming to about 2.8 degrees call for the emissions peak to be in 2040~ (RCP 4.5). Based on trends in renewables, the downturn in the coal industry, and emissions growth halting, it's increasingly hard to see how we could possibly get back on track to an RCP 8.5 scenario.
2.8 degrees will still be terrible for environment, the economy, and poorer nations of course, and we should really be aiming for the RCP 2.6 scenario, where emissions peak no later than 2020. It's possible emissions have peaked already, but we will need more than three years of data to determine that. Of course, than comes the hard part of taking offline the carbon intensive elements of the world economy (i.e Coal)"
What about the Elon Musk <-> Peter Thiel <-> Trump connection?
Trump respects Peter. He's young & rich.
Peter is an engineer. He must believe in global warming. He wants to live forever, so he'll need a good planet for that.
Musk is a firm believer in green tech.
Peter respects Musk?
The future of the planet depends on how Peter Thiel explains the role of clean tech to Trump! (I'm starting to be very happy about that $1 million Peter handed over to Trump)
While I understand what motivates your thinking so, I don't think you can assume this. I haven't looked for anything that addresses Thiel's opinion on this btw, so I'm agnostic on the issue.
I believe that it is already too late. Here's my proposed solution. Send a robot into space. Pickup an asteroid and bring it to Lagrangian L1. Have it begin weaving a solar curtain.
Can someone point me to a URL with an arguably good prediction of how these increasing temperatures would negatively effect the ecosystem specifically? Are we talking mass extinctions? More powerful storms/more extreme weather events? And/or something else?
There have been a number of studies on how many deaths can be attributed to air pollution. It seems to be ~1 million deaths a year in China. Here's a typical source (a press release with good graphs, the original paper is linked in it):
If it is truely a big problem, it will be more strengthful to let the denying end to fully deploy their defense. The hope may the system resilient enough not on an irreversable track which has a penalty not bailable.
[+] [-] jamesblonde|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JimboOmega|9 years ago|reply
It's a bit slow in the freezing season, even this completely out of control one, and can often degenerate into ridiculous arguments between a few posters.
But just in case... if there's any Sea Ice geeks in SF, I'd love to talk about it in person!
[+] [-] mugdho|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|9 years ago|reply
the real reality is that the Paris agreement is a horrid piece of do nothing legislation that lets the major developing powers do what they want all the while getting the nod of acceptance from the UN because of the hundred billion dollar payout. Basically we have what is a one time voluntary agreement to pay out to certain groups so that developing countries can continue to pollute provided they plan to eventually slow it
[+] [-] clumsysmurf|9 years ago|reply
By appointing Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the EPA, Mr Trump has made it clear he's made up his mind.
Personnel is policy.
[+] [-] barneygumble742|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blondie9x|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joering2|9 years ago|reply
Through CEI, Ebell has stated his belief that global warming is a hoax, that most of the data predicting climate change is false, and that the scientific consensus was "phony".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell
[+] [-] tomelders|9 years ago|reply
Trump supporters are usually the most vocal opponents to the climate change campaign, but like all people they will perform mental gymnastics to agree with their champion for a linited amount of time.
Through that (albeit ridiculously optimistic) lens, it's a golden opportunity.
[+] [-] 551199|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomelders|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] twright|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dharma1|9 years ago|reply
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JX41K2UK6Io/WCvyXQ6CFvI/AAAAAAAAW...
More info:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/
[+] [-] spacehacker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|9 years ago|reply
What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do?
He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to keep out southern populations fleeing extreme heat. But he'd keep the border with Canada open, so Americans can flee there if they need to. The oceans will protect us from the rest of the world.
He'd disentangle us from overseas treaty obligations that might draw us into wars we wouldn't otherwise want to fight. And he'd focus international relations on the few biggest countries who are most likely to secure and defend their own societies.
He'd incentivize U.S. companies to manufacture domestically: long supply chains are a risk.
He'd ramp up infrastructure spending--particularly on the coasts--to be ready to build sea walls and other mitigating structures.
He'd strengthen law enforcement to deal with internal unrest.
Like I said, I don't actually believe this...
EDIT: Another (and perhaps more likely) way to look at this is that Trump and his posse are just paranoid nuts, but by ignoring global warming, they will inadvertently bring about the global calamity that they fear.
[+] [-] hbt|9 years ago|reply
No one has a solution for climate change that doesn't involve changing personal habits. People don't want to do that. Eating less meat or a carbon tax (i.e taxing the working poor) is not a solution. It's admitting defeat.
People don't need to "believe in climate change". We simply need to build a solution that is much better than what they have available now. What that solution is? Plenty of ideas, no one has a clue how to execute them.
The current strategy for the left is: let's see how guilty we can make people feel about their consumption habits and scare them with far distant consequences. Talk about funding "green"/eco-friendly businesses which barely make a difference and try to sell people on carbon tax.
For the right, the strategy is: deny, deny, deny. Double down on economic growth and hope innovation follows.
Of course, "hope and dreams" sells. Admitting defeat wouldn't get you elected. The rhetoric is adjusted accordingly.
[+] [-] ced|9 years ago|reply
I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?
[+] [-] nhaehnle|9 years ago|reply
The clearest evidence for this is his repeated emphasis on increasing the use of coal and oil. Even if you believe massive global upheaval of societies can no longer be avoided, burning more coal and oil is still going to hurt you.
[+] [-] zelon88|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mzw_mzw|9 years ago|reply
See, this kind of loopy apocalypse-mongering is why you guys are having such a hard time persuading average voters that your cause is legit. Under what possible worst-case scenario are Americans going to need to "flee" to Canada? Is that one-foot ocean rise over the next hundred years going to flood the United States all the way to Grand Forks?
[+] [-] spacehacker|9 years ago|reply
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/5abz8e/why_rising...
[+] [-] hourislate|9 years ago|reply
The one thing most folks over look is how far are we ready to go to protect America? Global warming will unleash the largest migration the world has ever seen. There will be more than 2.5 billion people trying to escape somewhere more hospitable. You will have millions showing up on your shores from the far reaches of the world. An example is the 400 Sri Lankans that showed up in a boat off the coast of British Columbia 3 years ago. What to do? At some point there could be a million people showing up on the shores of North America (US/Canada) every month, can you imagine the chaos.
[+] [-] jhobag|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madaxe_again|9 years ago|reply
Virtually everything has been consistent with preparing for the worst case climate disaster. You might think that if we knew it was unavoidable it might comprise protecting populations in cities and so-forth by building huge coastal works, or moving populations, or other such huge projects, but were you to do something so overt you would instill mass panic and bring about a preemptive disaster. No. You would play a very subtle hand.
You would tighten border security, and normalise surveillance and the idea of searches, scans, and armed police.
You would instill a fear of refugees and migrants - this makes it far easier down the line when we hear how many hundreds of millions are in "temporary accommodation". They're far off. They're different to us. Callousness is a survival attribute, if the suddenly popular zombie horror and post apocalyptic genres tell us anything.
You'd saturate popular media with programmes in favour of securitised states, and which deal with unmanageable mindless hordes that need mowing down for the greater good.
You'd engage in wars which build a security apparatus and provide a distraction, while simultaneously feeding your black budgets for the preservation of the, hm, economically and socially valuable sectors of society and technology.
You hold hope around the idea of escape to another world to keep those whom might act problematically mollified until it's too late.
In your end game you start moving your population. Again, you don't want it done in chaotic panic, so you do it piecemeal. A move to the political right, you send your liberal elite scarpering to new climes, and while they're at it they pick places that they think will be mitigated against climate change because they think it might be a problem in their lives. A bit of civil unrest, more leave. Start a war. People flee. People die. Those without the means to flee get left behind - remember that desensitisation bit, and the whole concentrating upwards of wealth - if you wanted to design a system that would leave the majority of humanity unempowered and in the lurch if it all gets climatic, but give the "economically productive elite" a fire escape, you'd build it like what we have today.
I don't actually believe this either (although it would almost be comforting to, as it provides an explanation of sorts for the world), but I do wonder what home truths made Obama want to jump after his security briefings eight years ago - and that DoD report from a while back about the defence (civil and national) implications of climate change revealed a sobering level of thought has already gone into some rather dire possibilities.
It's a fairly crap hypothesis as one can't readily prove or disprove it.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anon1253|9 years ago|reply
To stay within the 1.5 to 2ºC bounds, the IPCC already includes massive carbon sequestering technologies in even its most simple recommendations. This is technology that does not exist. We're betting life on Earth (and truly, it is that dire) on tech that might be impossible to build and scale. Even if we reduce our carbon emissions to 0 today the delayed effects and non-linear dynamics are so poorly understood, that it could very well be that nothing truly can be done to avoid our mass extinction. And, this too goes for carbon sequestering; even if we magically suck the last 5 decades of carbon out of the air, some stuff that is broken can't be fixed. Thresholds, catastrophes, oscillations, bifurcations, etc are real. We really have to think in non-linear systems when dealing with climate, and that is something we're very bad at. Especially when it comes to the media-voter complex. But picture this, you are driving your car down some road, and everything is fine. You're minding your own business. There's nobody else there, so what the heck, let's ramp up some of the speed. And you go faster and faster. Until bam, unexpected steep corner, your car flies off the road and you die. At that point going back a couple of miles is never going to fix you. It's too late.
[+] [-] sammydavis|9 years ago|reply
I still can't believe someone like him can be president. If Jeb Bush had won, I would have been a little disappointed, but I would have gone to sleep and not worried that much about it. But he's terrifying. Maybe he'll just be unable to accomplish anything, so he will self-block, doing as much as obama with republican congress. More likely is he won't be in touch and pence can do whatever he wants.
[+] [-] sqeaky|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buckbova|9 years ago|reply
How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians will follow.
Perhaps if Trump can bring back more industry to the US, he is on his way to helping already.
[+] [-] jameskilton|9 years ago|reply
1) China is already convinced. It's in the article. They are the world-leading user of solar power and are pushing harder than anyone to get away from dirty power.
2) Trump wants to push and invest in dirty power. He wants to significantly increase the production of coal and gas. The very stuff that causes global warming. Convincing Trump is about saving the world from itself. If Trump has his way, the last 20 years of progress towards renewable energy will be wiped out, with a strong possibility of making life very difficult for humanity in the next 50 - 100 years.
[+] [-] papercrane|9 years ago|reply
The problem here is to convince world leaders to actually do something.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tell...
[2] http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/opinion...
[3] https://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014/
[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eig...
[+] [-] brian-armstrong|9 years ago|reply
China is also jumping on this opportunity, by the way. I saw an article recently that competitive solar will be a big focus point for its electronics industry.
[+] [-] knowaveragejoe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the8472|9 years ago|reply
http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/REN12-GSR201... (page 20)
[+] [-] CptJamesCook|9 years ago|reply
Why should Donald Trump worry about local air pollution in Beijing? This has nothing to do with climate change. I highly doubt Donald Trump thinks thick smog is a good thing.
[+] [-] acqq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lossolo|9 years ago|reply
"Hey guys this research isn't really finding out anything that wasn't already known. RCP 8.5 scenario, which they assumed in their modelling, has long been known to be effectively Armageddon. Any temperature rise past 5.5 degrees is probably irrelevant because there wont be any humans left to deal with that outcome.
However it's looking increasingly likely that we aren't on the RCP 8.5 pathway. RCP 8.5 calls for steady continued growth in emissions of around 3%+ per year, which is what we were on in the early part of this decade. The last three years emissions have been effectively flat in spite of ongoing economic growth, and the Paris pledges that will keep warming to about 2.8 degrees call for the emissions peak to be in 2040~ (RCP 4.5). Based on trends in renewables, the downturn in the coal industry, and emissions growth halting, it's increasingly hard to see how we could possibly get back on track to an RCP 8.5 scenario.
2.8 degrees will still be terrible for environment, the economy, and poorer nations of course, and we should really be aiming for the RCP 2.6 scenario, where emissions peak no later than 2020. It's possible emissions have peaked already, but we will need more than three years of data to determine that. Of course, than comes the hard part of taking offline the carbon intensive elements of the world economy (i.e Coal)"
source: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/5cz4a7/new_climate...
[+] [-] codecamper|9 years ago|reply
Trump respects Peter. He's young & rich.
Peter is an engineer. He must believe in global warming. He wants to live forever, so he'll need a good planet for that.
Musk is a firm believer in green tech.
Peter respects Musk?
The future of the planet depends on how Peter Thiel explains the role of clean tech to Trump! (I'm starting to be very happy about that $1 million Peter handed over to Trump)
[+] [-] grzm|9 years ago|reply
While I understand what motivates your thinking so, I don't think you can assume this. I haven't looked for anything that addresses Thiel's opinion on this btw, so I'm agnostic on the issue.
[+] [-] intrasight|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anon1253|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmarreck|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbennett|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dcgudeman|9 years ago|reply
Wow
[+] [-] greeneggs|9 years ago|reply
https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/HEI-GBD-MAPS-Chin...
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] meganvito|9 years ago|reply