SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We've Already Built too Many Power Plants and Cars to Prevent 1.5 °C of Warming:
In a [...] paper published in Nature today[*], researchers found we're now likely to sail well past 1.5 ˚C of warming, the aspirational limit set by the Paris climate accords, even if we don't build a single additional power plant, factory, vehicle, or home appliance. Moreover, if these components of the existing energy system operate for as long as they have historically, and we build all the new power facilities already planned, they'll emit about two thirds of the carbon dioxide necessary to crank up global temperatures by 2 ˚C.
If fractions of a degree don't sound that dramatic, consider that 1.5 ˚C of warming could already be enough to expose 14% of the global population to bouts of severe heat, melt nearly 2 million square miles (5 million square kilometers) of Arctic permafrost, and destroy more than 70% of the world's coral reefs. The hop from there to 2 ˚C may subject nearly three times as many people to heat waves, thaw nearly 40% more permafrost, and all but wipe out coral reefs, among other devastating effects, research finds.
The basic conclusion here is, in some ways, striking. We've already built a system that will propel the planet into the dangerous terrain that scientists have warned for decades we must avoid. This means that building lots of renewables and adding lots of green jobs, the focus of much of the policy debate over climate, isn't going to get the job done.
We now have to ask a much harder societal question: How do we begin forcing major and expensive portions of existing energy infrastructure to shut down years, if not decades, before the end of its useful economic life?
Power plants can cost billions of dollars and operate for half a century. Yet the study notes that the average age of coal plants in China and India—two of the major drivers of the increase in "committed emissions" since the earlier paper—is about 11 and 12 years, respectively.
[*] Monday.
(Score: -1, Troll) by wisnoskij on Wednesday July 03 2019, @02:52PM (13 children)
Most established coral reefs today are between 5-10 thousands years old. 2K years ago, temperatures were 4C higher than they are today.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:34PM (1 child)
Ocean Acidification.
Adding CO2 to water makes it more acidic. Sea life that builds shells and such like hard structures is in trouble if ocean water becomes acidic enough to dissolve their work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @06:39PM
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-acidity-coral-reefs.html [phys.org]
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:47PM
If I remember correctly acidification of the oceans is the reef's biggest issue. Higher CO2 levels dissolves more carbonic acid in the water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:55PM (2 children)
{{Citation needed}}
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday July 04 2019, @07:45AM (1 child)
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=5257 [imperial.ac.uk]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday July 05 2019, @08:03AM
I can't find the claimed 4°C global temperature difference in that link.
First, that link doesn't talk about global temperatures at all. Second, even for Britain, it doesn't give any temperature numbers. And the only mention of “2000 years ago” is that the Roman writer Saserna did suggest to use vineyards are marker for climate change back then.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 03 2019, @05:27PM (6 children)
Nope. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @06:17PM (5 children)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikimedia.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 03 2019, @06:32PM (4 children)
You realize that this graph proves that I'm correct, right?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @01:45AM (3 children)
Yep. You are completely correct on a pedantic level, taking the OP's claim of 2000 years ago as exactly the year 19 CE.
You are quite wrong if you regard the OP's general claim as to it being warmer thousands of years ago. That sort of nit-picking is what you deride about anti-warmists so it is quite funny to see you doing the same thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 04 2019, @03:23AM (2 children)
What the hell are you talking about? The graph shows the temperature was LOWER 2000 years ago and anywhere around that time within thousands of years. One data point of one estimate around that time was a maximum.of about 0.5 C above today, but the average of all the estimates was consistently lower than today.
How the hell do you get from that graph that it is anywhere close to OP's claim in this thread that it was warmer by SEVERAL degrees C 2000 years ago, when that graph clearly shows that hasn't been true any time in past 10000 years (and before that, it was an ice age...)?!
Takes some balls to troll at that level of stupidity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:15AM (1 child)
Are you talking about this graph?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikimedia.org]
The 2000 years figure is wrong, but between 4 and 8 thousand years ago it spends more time above the line than below it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:25PM
Barely more time above, and even then the max above is ~0.25 degrees. I think we're done here, just an idiot struggling to maintain the narrative which even the oil companies are admitting was bullshit propaganda.
Seriously, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ [scientificamerican.com]
You gotta accept that link, I mean it has science and american right in the URL! What are you some kind of anti-factual commie????