Climate change is now self-amplifying. Humanity can avoid speeding up the rate of climate change. Humanity can halt atmospheric temperature rise and its consequences, but not by reducing its emissions to zero in the next several years, even if that were feasible. All that would do is slow the rate of change down some. As is, the Earth's surface will become uninhabitable eventually. The question to ask is "How quickly?"

In workshops I have watched in the last couple years, climate scientists routinely state their belief that we will reach 2-2.5C degrees of average global atmospheric warming before we reach "net zero" carbon emissions in 2050. They also seem to think that we have started positive feedback loops of atmospheric temperature increase by heating the rain forests, the open ocean, the poles, forested areas, and permafrost. Some also think that those feedback loops are locked into the climate system. If so, those feedback loops can push temperature increase past 2.5C. I think they can work on their own from our current 1.2C of warming.

The choice of "tipping point" to describe the problem areas of the globe was a bad one. Once their amplifying changes start, some tipping points are reversible (like loss of rain forest to burning or plankton to pollutants) while most are not (like permafrost melt) over human timescales. The existence of a tipping point implies a sudden tipping over, but tipping point processes are fairly gradual in human terms, and their rate can accelerate or decelerate.

There is some consensus forming that the Arctic tipping point is past, but explaining what that means is confusing. We can expect ice-free summers in the Arctic in the coming decades. The ice losses amplify other processes like permafrost GHG release. The processes speed up atmospheric temperature increase. But I don't know if we can reverse the ice loss. There are some discussions out there about protecting the Arctic ice with geoengineering, but no studies of the feasibility of that possibility, and time is short.  

Scientists recently discovered a new tipping point connected to a loss of cloud cover past a certain degree of warming. An estimate of temperature increase forced by that loss of cloud cover is an additional 8C. That tipping point is estimated to happen at about 6C of warming (I think). That estimate of the warming level that forces the cloud loss might be too high.  

A couple years ago climate scientists began saying that real data had invalidated their climate models. Actual measurements show indicators (like Greenland ice melt) higher than models predicted and accelerating in their increase.

Scientists have revised model estimates for tipping points from higher levels of warming down to lower levels in the last decade. Every tipping point locks in some temperature increase. Some amount of temperature increase forces other tipping points. The tipping points can continue the temperature increase themselves (for example, melting permafrost can put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere itself, and the permafrost is already melting in today's climate). Tipping points also have other consequences (for example, melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet ruining farmland and drowning coastal cities) but my point is that acceleration of their processes occurs due to other processes (for example, Arctic ice melt can help indirectly release  GHG's that contribute to droughts and forest losses which removes a carbon sink, increasing net GHG's in the atmosphere). Tipping points now begin to fall at only 1.1C, when in the past they were believed to occur only with more atmospheric warming.

Lines of evidence like I listed here lead me to think that we no longer have to force the atmospheric system for it to continue to warm indefinitely. However,  we are continuing to force the system anyway, increasing the rate and acceleration of warming.

If I understand correctly, IPCC models used to calculate carbon budgets did not incorporate rate of change in global temperature forced by tipping point mechanisms (for example, permafrost as an an increasing carbon source). Instead, the IPCC used steady state models that ignored tipping point acceleration and extent and instead gave risk estimates of when some tipping points could be reached (whatever that means) in terms of atmospheric temperature increases forced by anthropogenic GHG's. The risk estimates served as signposts of what to avoid, and general consensus was to avoid warming past 1.5C. 

Climate scientists have to answer:

"Are present conditions sufficient to force all tipping points to reach their final stage or is anthropogenic forcing necessary?"

They are hesitating, so it's an open question for a while longer for most people. Once the question is answered, climate scientists have to look at the rate at which tipping points force climate changes and provide strong models with real estimates. Those models can help humanity grapple with geoengineering questions about how to successfully cool the planet.

If you are wondering, countries that pollute (or are responsible for pollution elsewhere) have committed to reach "net-zero" by 2050, but the promises are worthless and the plans are corrupted by special interests. Actual carbon production continues to follow exponential growth. Nowhere in negotiated plans do countries commit to reducing their emissions to zero. Instead, emitters promise a balance of greenhouse gas production and removal that is not timely or feasible at scale with current technology (DACS, BECSS, reforestation, etc). The international government agreement to reach net-zero by 2050 is an obvious and stupid failure that is visible 28 years in advance.

There are no feasible plans seriously and widely considered from any source to prevent destruction of human civilization due to climate change within the century.

Technology can address the problem of climate change. We just don't have the technology yet. I think the solutions would start with nanotechnology similar to what Eric Drexler predicted in the 1980's.

Humanity suffers the harm of ecosystem losses or biosphere destruction as well. Humanity causes damage to the biosphere in multiple ways, not just through climate change. Humanity has to heal the biosphere and reverse climate change in order to survive on Earth.

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hello Linch.

Thanks for your comment. Sure, after browsing the post that you referenced, I have a response to it that I can share with you.

As I wrote already, tipping point mechanisms are not incorporated into IPCC carbon budgets. I don't believe that their potential forcings are integrated into policy models of temperature change due to anthropogenic emissions in general.

As information about actual changes to tipping points increases, estimates of risk of those tipping points forcing temperature upward increases, but there is still a delay between research findings and their integration into consensus belief in the climate science community. There might be different reasons in different cases.

Actual data shows some tipping points (arctic ice melt, permafrost melt, rainforest losses, Greenland ice melt, global wind patterns, West Antarctic ice melt) beginning their forcings now and at an accelerating rate.

Older models of changes in large natural systems like plankton populations or Greenland ic sheets (and available data about them) let steady state approximations of those systems seem reasonable over this century. However, because climate scientists see more changes than they expect at lower amounts of temperature change, those approximations are no longer reasonable.

I believe that the equilibrium climate sensitivity metric that the authors quote does not account for tipping point processes forcing temperature increases to any great extent. I also doubt its reliability even if steady state approximations for tipping points were reasonable, but I don't have answers for those doubts now.

The value of the ocean as a carbon sink has declined since the start of the industrial revolution. It will continue to decline, but at rates that are not well-studied yet. The authors of the "Good news" article expect atmospheric CO2 to decline as land and ocean sinks absorb it. However, anthropogenic global warming, other anthropogenic forcing of natural systems (for example, poisoning plankton with micro-plastic or burning down rainforest), and indirect climate interactions reduce the capacity of those sinks. How much and with what consequences will be observable over this century.

Global warming is well-studied in the sense that climate scientists can make broad statements about eventual impacts and suggest policies that will avoid the continuation of global warming mechanisms. Or rather, that is how it used to be. Now that tipping points are an immediate concern, climate scientists have to play catch up with actual global warming events and revise their estimates of eventual impacts as new amplifying mechanisms are measured in action and models are revised to include more features or greater detail. There is not enough consensus on tipping point mechanisms or their consequences between scientists working within governments and those with more freedom to speak. From what I can tell, there are, and might continue to be, peer-reviewed studies of alarming evidence for future climate change impacts that the IPCC will not mention in its policy guidance because of filtering by government editors.

The authors of the 'Good news on climate change' post say:

"...in order for us to follow SSP5-RCP8.5, there would have to be very fast economic growth and technological progress, but meagre progress on low carbon technologies. This does not seem very plausible. "

I disagree. To follow RCP8.5, there would need to be continuing economic and population growth but not technological progress sufficient to displace dirty technologies.

Nanotechnological architecture, product manufacture, and pollution clean-up (as originally envisioned by Eric Drexler in "Engines of Creation") has value because that hypothetical technology will allow mega-engineering projects over time frames of a few days or weeks. With large-scale nanotechnology applications, humanity can develop and deploy global geoengineering tools, test them, and remove them if they create more problems than they solve. Meanwhile, our civilization can use nanotechnology to achieve energy efficiencies and clean technologies that replace dirty technologies and clean up their pollution quickly, within useful time frames of just a few months. Fantastic!

With nanotechnology in use, humanity doesn't have the problems of:
* poverty preventing change-over to low-GHG technologies at scale.
* using high-GHG technologies to manufacture low-GHG technologies at scale. 
* acquiring the source materials for the enormous manufacturing output required
* taking longer than the time available to produce and integrate low-GHG technologies into our economies.
* industrial and construction waste damaging the biosphere or increasing global warming.

Nanotechnology helps humanity avoid the scrooge path of increasing its population while resource limits, biosphere losses, and climate change reduce quality of life. I would not propose nanotechnology as a solution, but humanity needs working methods of cooling the planet and thriving in the meantime. Nanotechnology would work.

If nanotechnology of the sort I'm describing becomes a reality, then that will be the news that the post authors want. 
 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I can’t recall the last time I read a book in one sitting, but that’s what happened with Moral Ambition by bestselling author Rutger Bregman. I read the German edition, though it’s also available in Dutch (see James Herbert's Quick Take). An English release is slated for May. The book opens with the statement: “The greatest waste of our times is the waste of talent.” From there, Bregman builds a compelling case for privileged individuals to leave their “bullshit jobs” and tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. He weaves together narratives spanning historical movements like abolitionism, suffrage, and civil rights through to contemporary initiatives such as Against Malaria Foundation, Charity Entrepreneurship, LEEP, and the Shrimp Welfare Project. If you’ve been engaged with EA ideas, much of this will sound familiar, but I initially didn’t expect to enjoy the book as much as I did. However, Bregman’s skill as a storyteller and his knack for balancing theory and narrative make Moral Ambition a fascinating read. He reframes EA concepts in a more accessible way, such as replacing “counterfactuals” with the sports acronym “VORP” (Value Over Replacement Player). His use of stories and examples, paired with over 500 footnotes for details, makes the book approachable without sacrificing depth. I had some initial reservations. The book draws heavily on examples from the EA community but rarely engages directly with the movement, mentioning EA mainly in the context of FTX. The final chapter also promotes Bregman’s own initiative, The School for Moral Ambition. However, the school’s values closely align with core EA principles. The ITN framework and pitches for major EA cause areas are in the book, albeit with varying levels of depth. Having finished the book, I can appreciate its approach. Moral Ambition feels like a more pragmatic, less theory-heavy version of EA. The School for Moral Ambition has attracted better-known figures in Germany, such as the political e
MarieF🔸
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary * After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role. * This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again. * Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025. * I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director. Before the role When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022.  During the role I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to
Sarah Cheng
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
TL;DR: The EA Opportunity Board is back up and running! Check it out here, and subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter here. It’s now owned by the CEA Online Team. EA Opportunities is a project aimed at helping people find part-time and volunteer opportunities to build skills or contribute to impactful work. Their core products are the Opportunity Board and the associated bi-weekly newsletter, plus related promos across social media and Slack automations. It was started and run by students and young professionals for a long time, and has had multiple iterations over the years. The project has been on pause for most of 2024 and the student who was running it no longer has capacity, so the CEA Online Team is taking it over to ensure that it continues to operate. I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has run this project over the three years that it’s been operating, including Sabrina C, Emma W, @michel, @Jacob Graber, and Varun. From talking with some of them and reading through their docs, I can tell that it means a lot to them, and they have some grand visions for how the project could grow in the future. I’m happy that we are in a position to take on this project on short notice and keep it afloat, and I’m excited for either our team or someone else to push it further in the future. Our plans We plan to spend some time evaluating the project in early 2025. We have some evidence that it has helped people find impactful opportunities and stay motivated to do good, but we do not yet have a clear sense of the cost-effectiveness of running it[1]. We are optimistic enough about it that we will at least keep it running through the end of 2025, but we are not currently committing to owning it in the longer term. The Online Team runs various other projects, such as this Forum, the EA Newsletter, and effectivealtruism.org. I think the likeliest outcome is for us to prioritize our current projects (which all reach a larger audience) over EA Opportunities, which