https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false

It’s not reliable.

This is STRAIGHT quoted from your source:

“This data is based on territorial emissions, which do not account for emissions embedded in traded goods. Emissions from international aviation and shipping are not included in any country or region’s emissions.”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#d1e1978

Global temperature leaped more than 0.4°C (0.7°F) during the past two years,

many Earth scientists were baffled by the magnitude of the global warming, which was twice as large as expected for the weak 2023-2024 El Niño. We find that most of the other half of the warming was caused by a restriction on aerosol emissions by ships**

You are arguing just relying on this nonsense but I don’t think you have the depth or the context to understand how you’re being willfully misled.

That paper shows how 0.2° of current day GLOBAL warming is JUST from the emissions from ocean going ships!

Like…they are pretty clever in how they can trick people but leave them feeling confident that they haven’t been tricked. It’s “reliable”. But you don’t know what you don’t even know. They are leaving out all these major elements to paint a rosy picture.

Incidentally, there is a really great piece of science about our current conversation about primary versus secondary sources:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022AV000676

an excessive emphasis on data-intensive activities and the disproportionate investment of time and resources in these activities is leading to a displacement of more foundational scientific activities of our discipline. This not only impedes the scientific progress of our field

The money, time and effort going into (climate) data visualization and other communications is a huge distraction away from deep understanding. They are regurgitating old and obsolete information that has been discredited…instead of pushing knowledge.

Now, consider this:

“The IPCC aerosol scenario has zero aerosol forcing change between 1970 and 2005, which requires low climate sensitivity (near 3 °C for 2 × CO2) to match observed warming.”

Zero! These were highly credited people. Very credible. Highly reliable even.

We are now in a position to completely understand how to view this, we can confidently look at these models and see them as majorly wrong and an extreme downplay of what was happening.

So there are two sets of accounting books going around.

One set has cooked books with major, major accounting errors. Their predictions are not working out to be correct whenever something they didn’t consider changes they get caught out for fudging their math.

One set has been audited and reconciled. They are calling their shots ahead of time and predicting future outcomes and getting their predictions right on the money. Their model is probably not perfectly but it’s not egregiously vapid either.

Do you know what version of the science you’re looking at? Your reliable sources?

That isn’t a science source. Incorrect domain.

Do you read the funny pages for economy information?

The paper I linked in critical in understanding why these models are wrong.

Many of these models were tuned and calibrated by looking at the first twitches of climate change during the past 50 or 100 years (only). Mainly they were missing very large and important variables. When people have gone back to the paleorecord, they were able to see what was being omitted from the models.

This is exactly why all the headlines are screaming “faster than expected” “sooner than expected” “worse than expected”.

In short, industrial society was producing enough dust (+ water vapor + clouds) to almost totally cancel the warming effect in the short term. Which made it seem like the climate changes very slowly or not very sensitively. Models that didn’t know about dust and water and clouds were having all their numbers tweaked to “agree with reality”…making it seem like climate change isn’t that strong.

Only if you just keep at it, eventually that warming does kick into drive. So this is a very transitory stage. You cannot base a longer range prediction on these 15 year range narrow effects.

You don’t have better things to do. This is one of the most fundamental things to understand to put your whole life into perspective. Most people are either wasting their lives or they are building on a foundation of shifting sands.

Re-read the part with the asterisk in my previous comment. Like, they don’t come out and attack these 1.5 people directly, they just kind of point out the ridiculousness of the claim. Like…“when they say that stuff, they haven’t even thought it out”. It’s not even that they are wrong, they are just completely wrong. They don’t even have an actual argument, it’s really REAL nonsense. It’s a lot of work to try to dispel crap like that because it’s not even based on anything.

But of course, “reliable sources” is like a good example. If you delve into most of the logical fallacies / classical logic mistakes, what’s really interesting is that most of the fallacies are not actually logically tricky. What they are is social. In nearly all cases, someone lets their mind be confused by the perception of the social status or the value or the position of authority of the speaker of the false statement.

We humans survived by prizing group harmony and downplaying logic and reasoning. Like, we could not survive alone in the wilds, we HAD to protect our membership in the group.

My dude, you ARE in a suicidally stupid group. They are killing themselves and everyone around them. Trust no one.

Correct. The system only goes up 60% of the full temperature forcing in 100 years. So 75 years down the road from today you don’t see most of the temperature change, YET

Point 2: “Reliable sources”. They are likely wrong. Read the paper.

There is major politics and a lot of mistakes. They all downplay the severity for non scientific reasons.

The main human motivator was that if climate change was as dire and as bleak as the science suggested, there would be no hope at all. So nobody ever truly considered these scenarios because it was too scary and too politically impossible. Like…why bother thinking about problems for which there is no solution space? Instead focus on a narrow possibility that we are in a different problem that we have some agency within.

People have been looking at the science to see what they want to hear.

Here is a very clear example…

In this paper, they are talking about a comparison between the PETM and the climate forcing of today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

This had PROFOUND effects on the planet. Anoxic oceans, mass animal mortality, acidification of the oceans, decline of plankton and corals etc etc. Palm trees grew in the Arctic.

I mean…this is human extinction level stuff. They don’t come right out and say it anywhere. But you have to understand the context.

If you want to share where you’re getting the “1.5 by 2100” I can try to dispel the idea more fully. It’s probably a junk source. [*]

[*] In this paper I just linked, they talk about how the pollution that comes with CO2 emissions (soot, dust, smoke and other small particles) acts like a sunscreen, and water vapor also interacts with this dust layer and amplifies the effect, rapidly cooling the planet. They discuss how many of the scenarios where we eg. stop CO2 to limit warming by 2100… DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER that dust will stop, and when dust stops temperature actually ramps up even more quickly than we have ever seen before. The dust contribution is a more rapid effect than the CO2 part. Basically the idea is not even scientific at all.

Then they go into the details:

We would need rapid phaseout of carbon within a couple decades. Then we need a global program of solar radiation management (geoengineering) with the example of the Pinatubo eruption given to save inundation of the coastal cities. THEN we need to rapidly find a way to do negative emissions and restore the atmosphere to preindustrial.

(Also, equlibrium warming isn’t the only warming at play. You read the whole thing. Right? The other one is ESS, which involves feedbacks.)

If you just read to the end of that paragraph, it concludes with this:

Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

And what is ‘committed warming’?

They say:

If human emissions ceased, atmospheric CO2 would initially decline a few ppm per year, but uptake would soon slow—it would take millennia for CO2 to reach preindustrial levels

So the earth would eventually remove the CO2 via natural processes it’s not “committed”. It just takes thousands and thousands of years to go away again.

According to the paleoclimate data, the CO2 levels of today get you an equilibrium of 10° of global temperature rise. It takes about 100 years before the climate response happens.

https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false

To be clear on what’s required, we would need something like a free infinite energy source that doesn’t pollute at all. It also would have to be rapidly scalable within a decade or so. At that point we could have a giant vacuum cleaner sucking all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. We need to discover this new technology yesterday and it needs to clean the whole planet in about 20 years.

At this point in the story, we are adding about 1% to the CO2 pollution per year. Given the vast scale of the solution we will be coming up with, do you think this extra 1% or 25% will be somehow pivotal?

To me, this is like having pancreatic cancer that’s untreatable by medicine and deciding if you are going to quit smoking or not. Yeah, smoking doesn’t make it better, but in the face of the only cure being basically a miracle, is it actually meaningful to ask this question?

Like, a miracle that can cure an unfixable problem is so huge that do a few extra cigarettes hang in the balance?

I mean…of course you’re right. Slowing down CO2 pollution is very very important. In 1950.

(We do not have 50 years. Lol.)

Conservation of mass and conservation of energy gives a very easy planetary scale answer to this question.

From an energy standpoint, what it costs to bottle up the CO2 is equal to the following:

1. Take all the energy (heat + work) that was chemically embodied in all the historical fossil fuels. We need to run all those chemical reactions that released energy again, but this time backwards.

2. We need to also add the energy it would take to run the thermodynamic change backwards, because the original energy was in concentrated high density form, and now the carbon has dispersed to a low coherence state where it’s stuck in air, ice, water and vegetation all over the place. It all has to come back out which involves major material movements and filtering / transformation

In conclusion, this is more expensive than all the money and energy and materials in the entire human history put together.

Unless…

Do you know of any magic?

I feel a little dissapointed that you think I’m “nitpicking”.

So …I apologize if that seemed harsh or insulting.

Let me explain from my perspective. Analogy time:

Claim: You have been a problem gambler for decades and you have a major lifetime debt built up.

Me: How are you going to get out of debt?

You: I’m going to gamble less.

Me: You need to pay back the entire debt!

You: I can afford the credit card payments if I get a new card with a lower interest rate.

Me: You’re not hearing what I’m saying.

You: But the interest rates are only…

Etc.

Like…whoosh…not AT ALL facing the elephant in the room which is that no amount of further INCREASE is a DECREASE!! Like the technical discussion and details are not FULL ACCEPTANCE of the main point I’m making. It’s DENIAL.

Climate change is exactly like this. The scheme you’re discussing is that we can kick the can and “still have time to act”. (Is it 3 degrees or 5? Is it 2 decades or 4? How dire and how immanent is the crisis that is 99.999% inescapable at this point, let’s direct our attention to this and argue?)

This is like when Wile E Coyote runs past the edge of the cliff and hangs in mid air and looks down. But he still has time, he hasn’t started falling yet. Ok…so time for WHAT? What option does Wile E Coyote have that puts him back on the cliff?

This is like gambling more to try to win to solve the gambling problem. If you fail you have dug a bigger quicker grave.

Equilibrium global warming for TODAY’S co2 concentration is 10°.

Here is one reference, this number is right in the paper’s abstract: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false

Long story short, ECS was underestimated for political purposes. If ECS was as high as the paleoclimatology data showed, it would have removed all hope, so scientists completely ignored that scenario going back to the 1990s…

As this paper points out, carbon capture cannot work…the discussion is under the heading “Greenhouse gas emissions situation”.

There’s still margin for human society to stop the worst of outcomes.

Ah, OK! Problem solved. Lol.

This is what everyone is saying. The paper I just linked also said that. But what are the solutions? What does everyone think we can do? How do we avoid the bad situation? I’m genuinely asking.

I have not seen any solution that is fully scoped that gives a specific way of changing anything. They just say we “have time” to do something but they don’t say what to do.

As I stated: we seem to not know what to do.

Hint: this is why you’re nitpicking about the degrees of rise. It’s a typical psychological defense mechanism. If it was 3 or 9 or 17 it would not have any relevance in the face of our utter inability to deal with ANY scenarios regardless of the number.

Yep. There is a lot of hubris.

In general right wing folks don’t believe we have a big problem, which is literal denial.

In general left wing folks believe we can solve the problem easily without much sacrifice, which is denial of the implications.

When right wing people look at left wing people they think the solutions are not going to work and would be a big scary change and a sure loss of our way of life.

When left wing people look at right wing people they think that they are stupid for being pragmatic and realist instead of idealistic and fantastical.

Its a game where both sides blame one another and decades slip comfortably by while we remain deadlocked.

Those are also technologies, just not high tech.

Here is a question then:

According to the science, the ocean current changes are going to start driving climate change via a doubling of present day CO2. When the permafrost melts it will create as much additional CO2 as all human industry does on a repeating annual basis right now. This is an all natural process where CO2 pollution will snowball faster and faster with no human ability to adjust it.

so, do you think natural processes like growing trees have the potential where they going to erase that much feedback? Keeping in mind that the peat bogs, forests and ocean plankton we have today in a less damaged ecosystem ALREADY failed to curtail a much smaller human created CO2 pulse?

Hmm?

What you’re talking about is BECCS, by the way. Believe me or don’t, but the UN climate change panel already included this in all the accounting! Like, what the projections for the future say is that we are going to invent these technologies and deploy them and erase the CO2, and that’s assumed to be real and already factored into all the future projections…and they are still talking about 8 degrees of warming even including that. Notwithstanding that we have never done this yet and don’t know if it works.

So, there is a natural carbon cycle, natural nitrogen cycle etc.

On planet earth, the nitrogen cycle of the whole planet is only 50% of what humans need to eat every year. If you don’t have artificial fertilizers, tractors, refrigerators etc etc, there is no way people can be fed even if they are everything that nature created.

We are locked into an artificial life support system. Our agriculture system creates more CO2 than all the cars being driven by a factor of 3.

We have no technology that is waiting to fix this. There is no “fix” where lots of people wouldn’t die directly.

We DO NOT have sustainable technologies. For humans, we are committed to planetary overshoot if we stay alive, we have been in planetary overshoot for many generations already.

Your list of “solutions” are not real things that make significant change. Sorry. They slow down the worsening but they will not even extend civilization by one extra generation. You have been duped into thinking about this the wrong way.

Cities are giant factories that require the constant cycling of goods (food, water and other materials) using a transportation grid and they also require constant energy inputs to remove waste materials. Our ancestors didn’t build cities to permanently live in until they had cheap surplus energy and a way to store it. I have something to warn you about…so your idea about edencity and public transportation is like you almost see how unsustainable cities are, and why.

The idea that wind and solar are infinitely scalable has actually been properly studied in the literature. For example, Mark Jacobson has a fully elucidated picture of what that would look like globally. If I remember correctly, he calls for every river on earth to be dammed for hydro, windmills covering every continent and around 200 solar panels for every living human AND major deductions in energy usage. This is a more highly industrialized future than any previous human project. He did not explore the material or energy costs of building this system. So for instance, on a planet where we cannot feed, build houses and build transport for everyone it’s surprising if we can build them all windmills, batteries, wiring, solar panels and power dams. But…you know…we have to dream right? The main headline is that “the possibility is infinite”. I actually don’t believe that, it seems like all these large scale programs are already failing in many ways. Not that they aren’t the best idea we have, they are just not working out.

By the way , we could also eat insects ground into a protein mush instead of actual vegetables.

That’s geoengineering to reduce the strength of sunlight to get heat down. It has to be repeated indefinitely, forever, or heat increases again.

Also, it doesn’t reverse what’s causing climate change by removing carbon.

What’s an example of the technology, and can you explain what scale it works at?

There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc).

You’re only talking about reducing the rate of increases. That’s irrelevant. Carbon would still be growing, not shrinking.

As I stated, we need a way to decrease the existing carbon, which is a different, much larger problem, with no technology and nothing waiting in the wings. We have no ideas. Renewable or rebuildable power systems could be useful, but how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?

Many people have been manipulated into thinking of this whole problem as a “flow” or “rate” problem.

“If we could only slow down carbon…”

The thing is that what we have is a “sink” or “stock” problem where it’s how much carbon is already in the system – it’s past actions that are already closed off to further change that are influencing things now

The rate of change in climate isn’t from the rate of this year’s contribution of 4ppm of CO2, it’s from having 423ppm in the system all together forcing a very large shift in energy imbalance.

There is no solution space where slowing down the rate is meaningful. Going to zero or net negative for the ANNUAL rate next year is too small a lever against what work would need to happen to make a meaningful difference.

The TOTAL HISTORICAL carbon that is already there would have to be entirely removed and even that wouldn’t put the system all the way back due to inertia and other nonlinearities.

What you’re feeling today in the climate is actually geared to the emissions levels that were already achieved no more recently than 15 years ago in the past. What we do today will have effects that will only start in 15 years and take a long time to fully play out with effects still coming into play 100 years from today. This is a very very long lag time that confuses everything in terms of human feedbacks and human proof and human priorities.

A great number of people think we know what to do but we were too greedy and corrupt to do it.

I disagree. I think we have no idea what to even do. Humanity does not have the technology or capability to be sustainable. And so we think and talk about it wrongly because we do not want to accept that we are doomed.

Climate change isn’t an on/off switch, it’s something that can always be made better or worse by increments.

I’m just speaking to the accuracy of this one sentence. This is completely 100% incorrect.

The climate system is a chaos system that has many areas of stability, rapid transformation and tipping points.

If you think the system is only incrementally changing, that’s just because you haven’t pushed it hard enough to rapidly shift to a new area of behavior you’ve never seen before.

Many of these regimes are irreversible and cannot be changed back. You cannot unburn toast, it’s a one way deal.

Once the climate changes, EVEN if you reset the conditions, you will not return to the initial state. Not at all. That idea is propaganda.

The fossil carbon and other climate related chemicals we have already dumped into the environment have a very long lag time before we see the effects (at all). These chemicals and their effects are more long living that most nuclear waste, for example. These are not going away while humanity still exists. That’s a done deal.

Oops. 350% growth, not 350X growth…lost some decimal places there. Thanks for the correction.

A constant 2% economic growth rate implies that we expect the world economy in 2100 to be 350 times as large as the economy of today.

That means it roughly doubles every decade remaining in the century.

Insofar as prices or costs can go up, there seems to be no limit to growth.

Insofar as we have real physical resources and production increasing, I have a hard time imagining we can meaningfully double production one time.

For example, I can’t imagine a world with twice the built infrastructure we have now. (Houses, roads, power dams, airports, schools, etc). Seems impossible.

If growth has ended or is ending soon, it makes you wonder how long governments will be able to try to print their way out of stagnation before the whole system becomes irrelevant and comical.