James Dyke
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1511268589797531656.html

If anyone wants my "take" on the latest IPCC report then here goes (will be writing something about this later, but to be honest, this thread will probably allow me to say what I want to say more effectively).

1.5°C is over. We now have to imagine the most fabulous scenarios to truly honour the Paris Agreement. That includes increasingly including large-scale removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to drag down temps after "overshooting".

We are still firmly on course for around 3°C by end of century. But really these end of century and even mid-century projections & targets are meaningless. What we need is the reduction of fossil fuel use NOW (sorry for shouting).

The reason we're not cutting fossil fuel use is not because it's really hard (it is) or represents huge challenges for finance (it does). It's because a tiny fraction of humanity is resisting with all of its considerable power. Power it has accrued with fossil fuels.

I appreciate "Fossil fuel fucks are stealing my children's future" isn't the sort of title IPCC will use in press releases or SPMs but that's the brutal reality. And I'm very frustrated about why we academics find it so hard to say that (or family friendly version).

We are still playing the game of producing increasingly absurb scenarios and then watching as civilisation carries on regardless. Now this doesn't mean we haven't made some huge progress in decarbonising. We are seeing energy transformations in many places.

But it's nowhere near enough and I guess that most academics either know that or suspect it. We have to turn off fossil fuels. Not overnight - that will kill billions. But VERY SOON. And that is a direct challenge to the most powerful organisations the world has ever seen.

Did you ever think they would wake up one day and decide to implode their industry? I'm not painting them as the victim here, but they will require support from governments to fundamentally repurpose their missions. This cannot be left to the market.

That's what this latest IPCC report says to me. I am profoundly grateful to all (lead)authors & reviewers. We would be in a far worse place without them. But now we need a new stage of academic engagement with the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

That's why I'm working with facultyforafuture.org Perhaps you would like to join us.

Gloom Reality: Even the Most Daring Technologies Can No Longer Reverse Impacts of Climate Change | Nature World News
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/49777/20220307/gloom-reality-even-daring-technologies-longer-reverse-impacts-climate-change.htm

"SRM carries a severe danger of changing regional and seasonal rainfall patterns and ozone depletion, ocean acidification, and other known and undiscovered negative consequences."

....

Outside of the IPCC, opposition to SRM is growing: over 240 eminent worldwide scientists have asked for a solar geoengineering non-use agreement that would essentially stop SRM from progressing.

A recent SRM equipment test over indigenous land in Kiruna, Sweden, was canceled amid vociferous objections from the Saami Council and environmental groups. They believe that climate modification is fundamentally incompatible with indigenous cosmology.

The only logical conclusion is that we must, by all means necessary, begin on pathways that prevent a 1.5°C overshoot and climatic collapse.




Paul Maidowski komentuje https://t.co/jbwB7AkWrx

:Many professors signed, but I don’t get it.

(1) We oppose SRM as ungovernable & worry about a termination shock;

(2) BUT want 1.5°C, which requires SRM;

(3) BUT don’t focus on the ongoing termination shock from sulfate aerosol cuts?

Genuinely puzzled! Maybe someone can help?

Why Do We Cling to Art in Apocalyptic Times? – ARTnews.com
https://www.artnews.com/feature/why-cling-art-apocalyptic-times-max-ernst-1202688847/

We face a choice, amid the slow collapse of a derelict civilization. It is not a choice of whether to stop global warming, whether to head off its inevitable consequences, or whether to save the world. The choice we face, like the choice Ernst faced on his escape from Camp des Milles, is simply whether to accept the reality we find ourselves in. Such an acceptance demands letting go of the burdens we have dragged so far, letting go of any hope for salvation, letting go of every piece of hoarded flotsam we think we might yet need, and facing the fact that the new world we are doomed to inhabit is as alien to our lives today as are the moons of Jupiter, the ziggurats of the Aztecs, or the blood cults of the ancient Greeks. There is only a narrow passage to this new world, the eye of the fiery needle, and to linger on the threshold is to die. On the doorway’s lintel are inscribed these words: “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

1990 climate game

We're Not Facing a Global Food Crisis | Aaron Smith
https://asmith.ucdavis.edu/news/russia-ukraine

In summary, the Russian invasion is a large shock for agricultural commodity markets, but not historically large. Markets and trade patterns will adjust to absorb it. Farmers around the world will produce more and consumers will cut back or substitute. The transition may be difficult in some places, especially countries such as Egypt that typically rely on wheat from Russia and Ukraine



Russia, Ukraine, and Food Supply: Look at the Prices | Aaron Smith
https://asmith.ucdavis.edu/news/russia-ukraine-redux

Numerous countries, notably those in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), import a high percentage of their calories from Russia and Ukraine. For example, wheat contributes more than a third of calories consumed in Egypt, and half of this wheat comes from Russia and Ukraine. Lebanon imports about 90% of its wheat and gets most of its imports from Russia and Ukraine. These countries will need to find new suppliers this year.

The war will also disrupt food supplies to people in Ukraine and to refugees who have fled to neighboring countries.

These are serious issues and I don't intend to diminish their importance. Low-income consumers in these and other countries can be severely affected by relatively small increases in food commodity prices, especially given that wheat prices were already relatively high before the invasion. Wealthy governments and donors can help bridge the gap.

...

between the summer of 2020 and the end of 2021. They have not increased much since Russia invaded Ukraine.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote: "If sanctions cut Russia and Belarus off from world markets, then it will leave a hole that other producers will need to fill. China produces almost all of the nitrogen and phosphate it uses, so it will not absorb Russia's exports. However, the apparent lack of a post-invasion price spike suggests traders are not yet worrying about a global shortage of fertilizer." This still holds true.

Moreover, wheat and corn traders know about fertilizer prices, and they factor that information into their trading decisions. If they were worried that the invasion would create fertilizer shortages and thereby seriously curtail food production, then they would bid wheat and corn prices up. But, they aren't doing that.

JIMIQ: hele, ke mě se dostal tip na 50W ohebné panely za 999 Kč, takže jich jdu vykoupit 6... a pak si povíme, kolik % populace jsem tím zachránil před vymřením :-) největší úspora vznikne v důsledku "kdo si hraje, nezlobí" (moje solární kolo asi nenajede zas tolik km, ale taky bych si za ty peníze mohl koupit letenku, že jo...)

JIMIQ: nikdo příčtený populaci nesnižuje. Ale růst hladin moří v horizontu 100 let skutečně může vést k tomu, že ta populace jednak nebude mít kde bydlet (přímořská města prostě budou zaplavena), jednak zaniknou obrovské plochy zemedělské půdy (leda by více přímořských oblastí šlo cestou Holandska a hrází). Diskutabilně ale nově vzniklá šelfová moře budou vhodná pro rybolov, hmm....

JIMIQ: Mezi poklesem o 10% a na 10% je ovšem drobný rozdíl...

TADEAS: budoucnost neni vepsana v kameni, asi tak ve strucnosti.

Ze ty scenare nechces videt, neznamena, ze nemohou probehnout. A i kdyby takove modelace neexistovaly, neznamena to, ze soucasne modelace jsou naprosto spravne. Kazdy model je zalozeny na predpokladech a predpoklady si muzeme kdykoliv vycucat z prstu, misinterpretovat ve studiich, nebo se muzou zmenit novymi poznatky, ci technologiemi. Modelovat budoucnost lidstva ve fazich 'chaosu', kdy se meni velke mnozstvi dosud predpokladu, ktere se v casovych radach pro existujici modely pouzivaji, je prakticky nemozne.

Kdyz mi vyjmenujes kazdou jednotlivou vec, kazdy jednotlivy predpoklad, muzu ti na to rict 1...n mitigacnich akci.

Cimz nerozporuju, ze lidstvo nebude v nejake kriticke klimaticke fazi redukovane (pravdepodobne jen docasne, nic mimoradneho v historii lidstva), jen rozporuju tvuj statement, ktery prijimas jako nevyvratitelny fakt, ne jako hypotezu s urcitou pravdepodobnosti.

Ad vnitrni dynamika - asi se nemusime bavit o lidech, ale obecne o zivych organismech. Dokud jsou zdroje, organismus se mnozi, dokud nedosahne vycerpani zdroju. Lide se lisi v tom, ze jednak jsou co se tyka zdroju a jejich substitutu velmi flexibilni a jednak dosahli nejakeho globalni kolektivni vedomi, kde jednotlivec nutne nemusi delat ani si uvedomovat vse nutne pro preziti a presto ho kolektiv udrzi a udrzuje pri zivote.

Uz napr. z diskuze, ze plytvame 30% globalne potravin to znamena, ze mame 30% rezervu pro uspory.

Btw jsi mi jeste neodpovedel na predchozi prispevek, zajmal by me tvuj nazor TADEAS:

Prednaska o demografii
Declining Global Population and Its Consequences with Dr. Darrell Bricker
https://youtu.be/hNqCRvDbCVI