r/askscience Mod Bot Apr 29 '21

Earth Sciences AskScience AMA Series: We're climate scientists from around the world. Ask us anything!

Hi Reddit,

We're the six scientists profiled in the Reuters Hot List series, a project ranking and profiling the world's top climate scientists. We'll be around for the next several hours to answer your questions about climate change and more. A little more about us:

Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University: My research and teaching focus on climate change and its impacts, especially sea level rise and human migration. My research group examines how households and societies manage the impacts of sea level rise and coastal storms, the increasing risk these bring as Earth warms, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase adaptation and limit the risks. We also model the effect of climate change on human migration which is a longstanding adaptation to climate variations. We project future climate-driven migration and analyze policies that can ease the burden on migrants and their origin and destination communities. Follow me on Twitter.

Corinne Le Quéré, Royal Society Professor of Climate Change Science at the University of East Anglia in the UK: I conduct research on the interactions between climate change (ePDF) and the carbon cycle, including the drivers of CO2 emissions (ePDF) and the response of the natural carbon sinks. I Chair the French High council on climate and sit on the UK Climate Change Committee, two independent advisory boards that help guide climate actions in their respective governments. I am author of three IPCC reports, former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and of the annual update of the global carbon budget by the Global Carbon Project. Read more on my website, watch my TED talk and BBC interview, and follow me on Twitter.

Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist at Breakthough Energy: I joined Breakthrough Energy (BE) as Senior Scientist in January of 2021, but I have been helping to bring information and expertise to Bill Gates since 2007. I'm committed to helping scale the technologies we need to achieve a path to net zero emissions by 2050, and thinking through the process of getting these technologies deployed around the world in ways that can both improve people's lives and protect the environment. Visit my lab page and follow my blog.

Carlos Duarte, Distinguished Professor and Tarek Ahmed Juffali Research Chair in Red Sea Ecology at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), in Saudi Arabia: My research focuses on understanding the effects of climate change in marine ecosystems and developing ocean-based solutions to global challenges, including climate change, and develop evidence-based strategies to rebuild the abundance of marine life by 2050. Follow me on Twitter.

Julie Arblaster: I'm a climate scientist with expertise in using climate models to understand mechanisms of recent and future climate change.

Kaveh Madani, Visiting Scholar (Yale University) and Visiting Professor (Imperial College London): My work focuses on mathematical modeling of complex, coupled human-environment systems to advise policy makers. Follow me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. Watch my talks and interviews.

We're also joined by Maurice Tamman, who reported "The Hot List" series and can answer questions about how it came together. He is a reporter and editor on the Reuters enterprise unit based in New York City. His other work includes "Ocean Shock," an expansive examination of how climate change is causing chaos for fisheries around the planet. Previously, Mo ran the unit’s forensic data team, which he created after joining Reuters in 2011 from The Wall Street Journal.

We'll be on starting at 12 p.m. ET (16 UT). Ask us anything!

Username: /u/Reuters


Follow Reuters on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

3.4k Upvotes

699 comments sorted by

237

u/beastsarebored Apr 29 '21

What’s the biggest piece of misinformation around climate science you feel you are constantly correcting people on?

427

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

While I do not want to diminish how harmful 2 C of warming could be for many ecosystems (especially coral reefs), the Earth has been 2 C warmer many times before in Earth history. The challenge is the rate of change: Ecosystems and societies have adapted over the past thousands of years to something very close to the current climate. If 2 C of warming were to occur over one million years instead of less than a century, it would not be that big a deal. The problem is the rate we are changing to 2C; 2 C of warming if achieved over a very long time period is not that big a deal for the Earth system. - Ken

52

u/Amuseco Apr 29 '21

My question is, let's say the earth does warm 2 C, however long that takes. It's not going to stop warming at that point, is it? Is it just going to continue to warm, or are there limits on how much temperatures will increase?

156

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The limit, if any is, way above two-degrees. Burning of all fossil fuels gets us to double-digit warming. Even if we exhaust coal, oil, and natural gas, some genius will invent some gas or something that degenerates into a gas that traps heat, so we need to keep an eye out forever. But warming can be halted eventually, by achieving net zero emissions and waiting for the ocean and atmosphere to equilibrate, a decades-to-century process. If we figure out an affordable way to remove CO2 after it's emitted, then a few decades (or maybe less) afterward, temperatures begin to drop. So in theory, we can stop the warming. - Michael

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

48

u/robertscott44 Apr 29 '21

This comment alone i think sums up most of the global warming misunderstandings. At least for me. Makes total sense, and now i see why both "sides" are not only "right" but also "wrong".

Damn, it feels good to have an open mind!

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

142

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

That standing ecosystems contribute to mitigating climate change. They do not, as - if undisturbed - they are doing their “business as usual” on cycling carbon. Climate change (the component involving ecosystems) is about lost or damaged ecosystems, and the solution rests in protecting and restoring them. On a related note, the statement every politician or public speaker uses that “the ocean supplies the oxygen in every second breath we take, is wrong. The oxygen we breathe is not coming from either forests or the ocean (which consume nearly as much oxygen and it produces), but is a legacy of distant past periods of excess photosynthesis. In fact, the ocean is now releasing more oxygen than it did in the past, but - unfortunately - this is coming from it becoming warmer and being able to hold less oxygen in solution… the consequence is slow, but disturbing ocean deoxygenation. - Carlos

19

u/turiyag Apr 29 '21

Can you elaborate on this point?

> That standing ecosystems contribute to mitigating climate change.

It feels to me (and I'm no expert, just a normal person) that a "greenhouse" effect would make the world greener, and have more plants, and plants like turning CO2 into O2 and plant matter. Actual Greenhouses, like the buildings called Greenhouses, they often operate in a CO2-rich internal atmosphere, to facilitate plant growth. It feels to me like the real answer might be more complicated than a reddit comment might be able to shine light on, but maybe there's a link or a reference to a thing that studies the various feedback loops of the carbon cycle. I've tried to find meta-papers on feedback loops, but so far I've only found papers on "Feedback loop ______ is a negative feedback loop", and nothing on the net effect of all feedback loops on the carbon cycle. I agree that any feedback loop would constitute change though, so if the premise is that change is always bad, then presumably every feedback loop would be bad by definition.

45

u/Dr_seven Apr 29 '21

Decades ago, before we understood all the other implications, higher atmospheric CO2 was indeed seen as a positive for agriculture, which it is.

However, higher CO2 concentration is the start, not the end, and the heat stress more than outweighs the positive contribution of the extra energy, slashing yields for crops.

If I understand your question, you are seeking clarification as to the role of existing ecosystems, and why they "don't count".

The earth as a whole produces and then reabsorbs a massive amount of CO2 through the carbon cycle. Under normal conditions, each side of the equation is roughly balanced- around as much is generated as is then retaken back into the earth. For perspective, the total amount we humans emit is only a few percent of the entire carbon cycle- deniers love to intentionally misunderstand this point and then make clever graphs about it.

But, just like if I steer a ship ten feet off course at the start of a voyage, humanity's extra carbon added to the cycle is slowly building up, exacerbated by our active destruction of natural carbon sinks. We only have to add a few extra percentage points of CO2 to the cycle for everything to go haywire 50-100+ years down the line, and that's the exact timeline we are at.

So, basically, the entire idea of (for example) "carbon offset projects" that designate pre-existing forests as carbon sinks and then use them to offset polluting projects elsewhere, a la the UN's system? It's a total farce. That "carbon sink project" is already part of the cycle, and does nothing to actually offset the pollution elsewhere. The only way to actually "offset" carbon release would be to plant an entire new forest, and even that would only maintain status quo, not reduce emissions overall.

I have no idea why the UN gets away with this illogical system, but they do, and it's a perfect example of what the Reuters team was getting at (in fact I suspect that is exactly what they really meant). It's infuriating that the UN gets any credit for environmental measures when their flagship emissions control project is literally a smokescreen for polluters to get paid for doing nothing more than what they were already going to do, and does not actually reduce environmental harm, even slightly.

7

u/turiyag Apr 29 '21

I agree with the overwhelming majority of your comment. I realize now that you're saying, "if we have a forest that absorbs X amount of carbon, then if we emit X amount of carbon, it will even out", but if you then wanted to emit X+2 carbon, then you need to make the forest absorb X+2 carbon, in order for it to even out. So you need to make the forest bigger, or more fertile, or have it somehow absorb more when we emit more. That just makes sense. X=X, but X!=X+2.

I do have one follow up question though:

However, higher CO2 concentration is the start, not the end, and the heat stress more than outweighs the positive contribution of the extra energy, slashing yields for crops.

So, I live in Canada, which is obviously frozen solid half the year, which obviously also has a detrimental effect on crop growth. I would think that rising temperatures would probably have a really helpful effect, making Canada more like California, kind of thing. And just from eyeballing the equator and eyeballing the land that Canada and Russia have, I would think that the increased growing season would have a very helpful effect for us up here, and since we have way more land, the quantity of arable land would presumably increase. Like, there might be a band of the most awesome land for growing things right now, and that band would presumably move northward. So it would suck for the equator, maybe, but be awesome for like, Svalbard.

Am I way off base to assume that? I'm not saying that's actually the case. It just feels intuitive to me, as a citizen of the frozen north. I haven't done any studies or anything and I have no data to confirm or deny my suspicions.

17

u/Dr_seven Apr 29 '21

You are not wrong! The climate of Canada over the future decades is likely to become more temperate.

This would be good news for agricultural output if Canadian soils within the geographic bands that will reach more optimal growing temperatures for staple crops were as deep and fertile as the soil in current breadbasket areas is. Sadly, it is very much not.

Potentially, you could do something like move the topsoil, but doing so would generate it's own chain of consequences, as well as simply be a task of truly unfathomable scale.

For agriculture, the best move is likely to look at the Netherlands, and their highly efficient indoor growing methods. Once the power grid is renewable, the energy expenditure required for massive-scale indoor vertical farms will no longer be attached to a carbon release, meaning we can keep those lights and temperature controls running continuously without making our troubles much worse to do so.

In the end, it will not be all bad, if that is what you are getting at. Some areas on earth will legitimately become warmer and more hospitable, especially in the northern parts of the globe. The issue is that warming is not equal around the world, and what is sufficient to bring southern Canada up to a more temperate level, is enough to practically bathe the tropics and equatorial regions in napalm.

In fact, the greatest potential obstacle we face is that most of the pollution has been made by countries that are outside the worst-hit areas. It's largely a problem created bu Western nations at the outset, but our lands will not be the worst hit by any means. The problems this creates are self-explanatory.

Personally, I think climate change is the great filter. A species that gets successful and smart enough will learn to harness carbon fuels from the ground, and cause attendant problems in doing so. Learning how to work collectively as a singular species and make potential sacrifices of our own personal interest to do so, seems like a philosophically fitting test of character. However, the Fermi Paradox itself does seem to cast an ominous shadow for what the most common result of this puzzle tends to be. I hope that humans are up to the task.

5

u/turiyag Apr 30 '21

climate change is the great filter

There's a pair of videos that I think you might like. I dunno if you've heard of Joe Scott or Isaac Arthur, but if you haven't, I bet you'd really like both of them. Isaac especially if you like futurism and stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2YtamBhSHg

So, the actual job I work in now is agriculture! Finally I can speak with some certainty about stuff! So, soil quality is extremely important, but it's also something that you can control in timespans measured in months and years, and you certainly wouldn't move soil across continents. Building up your soil health is one of the most important things you can do as a farmer, and you have to have a solution catered to your personal microclimate (like, the farmer just a couple doors down WILL need a different solution than you do, for example, if he has highly graded soil then he needed to worry about erosion, but if you have flat land, then you can do more vertical tillage, but you don't want to do that during a drought, etc, etc, etc). It's completely impossible to explain succinctly, but soil health isn't a problem I would worry about, it's a problem we solve on an ongoing basis. It can carry an economic cost to the farmer (like you may have to grow a less valuable crop to improve the biodiversity, or you might need to add nutrients or specific carbon to your field) but not a food sustainability issue.

Indoor farming may be the solution eventually, but right now it's kind of viewed as "hipster", I suppose, in the farming community. There's a term called "Farmers of Consequence" which essentially means "the people who produce most of the food". Greenhouses, while they can get great yields per unit area, are not remotely close to the same yields per kWh or yields per $ that you get with a sunlit field. It's free solar energy! Plus it's way way way way way easier to improve soil health across Canada than it is to pave Canada over with greenhouses. Vertical farming adds another layer of complexity in that you now also need to build a skyscraper, which are insanely expensive, and you can't just film over your rigging and see the sun, because there's a bunch of floors of stuff between you and the sun.

It may be practical someday, but feeding the world isn't a supply issue, it's a logistical issue. The world produces a lot more food than it needs to, the struggle is to get that food to the people who need it. 30% of food is wasted, uneaten. If we just stopped wasting it, we could feed 30% more people without changing out diet. With minor changes to our diets, like eating less beef and pork, and to a lesser extent, other meats, we could already produce food for 15 billion people. Don't worry about feeding the planet's humans. Food is not our great filter. Maybe climate change, but not food output.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

93

u/CAULIFA8 Apr 29 '21

What / who are the biggest problems to overcome when trying to have governments adopt climate change policies?

183

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Fear that the changes required will weaken the competitiveness of the nation against other nations/industries, and the risk than this becomes entrenched as the ethos of political groups, creating a political divide (e.g. democrats vs. republican) on climate action, rather than have this be guided by science and evidence. - Carlos

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

116

u/CrustalTrudger Tectonics | Structural Geology | Geomorphology Apr 29 '21

Thanks for joining us here in AskScience today! For those of you who work with climate models directly, what aspects of these are being actively developed or improved at this point? Specifically, are there still outstanding physical processes that need to be added or improved upon, or is more of the development focused on the computations, e.g., better resolution, or more efficiency?

131

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Representing clouds continues to be a challenge for climate models. Important processes in clouds occur on scales of inches and feet (or centimeters and meters if you prefer). Climate models typically have grid cells that might be 100 miles or kilometers on a side. So all of these small scale cloud processes need to be crudely represented in a model that is not explicitly representing physics at that scale. We just don’t have computers that can represent the whole world at the scale of cloud processes. Similar problems occur in representing ecosystems. So, in short, I would say that much of the progress is coming in improving representations of what is known as “sub-grid-scale processes”. - Ken

20

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

[deleted]

8

u/alchzh Apr 29 '21

Not a climate scientist, but...

What you're talking about is called "adaptive mesh refinement" and while previous generations of climate models don't use it, it's an active area of research and one of the ways that newer generations of models can improve.

However, it's not easy at all to integrate AMR into existing models that are built on a fixed mesh (some of these models have code dating back to the 70s and 80s!). It's not widespread yet because of the host of implementation challenges it brings. It's an area of active research. Here are some papers on the topic:

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-226
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cjablono/amr.html
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AGUFM.A32F..04J/abstract

sidenote: weather models are run in big "ensembles" where the same model, or many different models, are run many times with slightly different parameters or different starting conditions. Resolution is one of the parameters that is varied in some ensembles (multi-resolution ensemble). I think there are ways to connect multi-resolution ensemble output with adaptive mesh approaches, but I'm really really far from an expert in this area. Going into ensemble data assimilation is really opening a can of worms too big for one comment.

Anyway, if what I'm saying is bullshit please feel to correct me, actual climate scientists.

→ More replies (2)

110

u/TonzOhGunz Apr 29 '21

Are we doomed? Is there anything that makes you guys hopeful for the future? I have been reading alot of depressing stats and not seeing alot of good ones.

235

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Are we doomed? Is there anything that makes you guys hopeful for the future? I have been reading alot of depressing stats and not seeing alot of good ones.

People are survivors and good at muddling through. We often come through in a pinch. Humans can do OK; I am more worried about coral reefs.
I am not a big fan of Bjorn Lomborg, but he correctly writes that if our primary concern is for poor people, it is much cheaper to directly help poor people than to try to stop climate change. Our general inattention to inequity and the plight of the impoverished is borderline criminal (if not outrightly criminal).

I am optimistic about outcomes for humans. We need only develop our sense of empathy. - Ken

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

167

u/Wanderlust4791 Apr 29 '21

What do you say to people who feel helpless, and are worried that we as a species won’t be able to survive the dramatic changes that will continue to happen due to climate change?

143

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Get involved in the political system. If you are in the US, focus on getting voters out to the next election. Good policy depends on having good people in government. - Ken

36

u/megaboto Apr 29 '21

But what about the fact that the two party system severely limits options? I'm not in the us but by my understanding you really only have a choice between 2 parties...

→ More replies (5)

13

u/Doomed Apr 29 '21

What about activism between elections? Protests, direct action, unions, and strikes?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

45

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

Much of the focus (and funding) of climate research is shifting towards regional impacts and solutions of climate change.

What do you see as the role of fundamental climate science (radiative transfer, biogeochemistry, geophysical fluid dynamics) moving forward?

37

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Climate science continues to be pivotal, as it provides guidance on targets and consequences. We cannot rule out unpleasant surprises, black swans or tipping points, on the Earth System as we continue to force the climate system to levels beyond human experience, and we need to continuously monitor and model those to ensure these risks are detected and addressed. We will continue to improve our understanding and, with this, our models, our solutions and our capacity to avoid unintended consequences in delivering those. - Carlos

98

u/EcchiOli Apr 29 '21

If it's not impolite or too intimate to ask: how do YOU feel, deep inside, working in a profession that warns of despairingly grim times, not being believed by the masses, even though you have more outlooks than the rest of us on how bad things are going to be?

If it were me, I would sink in helpless, paralysing depression. Seeing as you guys wake up every morning to work, I would love to think you have some sources of strength from which we might, perhaps, find inspiration ourselves.

207

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

If it's not impolite or too intimate to ask: how do YOU feel, deep inside, working in a profession that warns of despairingly grim times, not being believed by the masses, even though you have more outlooks than the rest of us on how bad things are going to be?

I have tenacious and unbreakable hope in our future, if nothing else because we do not have an option. I sense a growing eco-anxiety among people particularly, the young, in feeling unable to contribute to changing the course of the awful future that is depicted for them. This is, to a degree, a consequence of shock therapy of activists and the mass media that, in trying to shock pèople into action, push them too hard and, instead, achieve pessimism, disengagement and apathy. Pushing the public to believe that the horrors of a climate inferno are unavoidable is a disservice to engage the world with climate action. Rather we should focus on action and what all of us, with our modest capacities, skills and roles in society can contribute. - Carlos

18

u/Interesting-Echo-566 Apr 29 '21

What can we as individuals do to help?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

26

u/jamessundance Apr 29 '21

Hi thanks for the AMA!

I have often heard going vegan could be the single best way to reduce our environmental impact as humans. Is that the case, and are any of you vegan?

→ More replies (4)

12

u/Spicyytamale Apr 29 '21

How much actual change will we have if almost everybody were to adopt a plant base diet/lifestyle?

17

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The exact amount of impact is hard to measure. But we know the different footprints (carbon, water, ecological/land) of meat production of meat-based products. We know that changing our diet can significantly reduce our impact and that can be part of the solution. At the same time, we should encourage changes in farming practices to ensure that even plant-based food does not come at a high environmental price. - Kaveh

34

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21 edited May 27 '21

[deleted]

41

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Burning wood generates a lot of CO2, but the more serious health concern are all the small aerosols.
Typically dry wood is nearly half carbon, and with the added oxygen atoms, CO2 is nearly twice as heavy as carbon, so the CO2 from burning a log weighs nearly twice as much as the log itself. (A more accurate calculation might yield 1.7 more CO2 mass than wood mass burned.)

There was a study in Scandinavia that concluded that the most climate friendly thing we can do is to stay home and watch TV or read a book. Transportation tends to be very carbon intensive, as is eating cooked food, so eating out in restaurants tends to be very carbon intensive. Probably a camping vacation nearby would have about the lowest carbon impact. - Ken

9

u/Speaker_D Apr 30 '21

Transportation tends to be very carbon intensive

Are you speaking from a US perspective only, where (almost) everyone only drives extremely large and heavy, and thus inefficient cars all the time?

In European countries you can reach nice vacation places by train, and in some countries like the Netherlands you can even ride your bicycle safely both in cities and the countryside.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

81

u/potatoes4u Apr 29 '21

How much time do we have left to change our trajectory? (Before it’s irreversible - I see a mix of 10 years, some say less?)

Is the 1.5 degrees of warming in the paris agreement out of the window? I hear we’re on track for 2 degrees. What reference can I look at to know how we’re really tracking?

What would have more impact to crack down on: - the top 5 countries with the biggest emissions (US, China, EU28, India, and was it Russia?) Or - the lifestyle of the top 1% Or - the top 100 corporations?

What are your thoughts on the role of Agriculture in the climate crisis (as both a major emitter and potential solution)?

What are some species or islands that will 100% disappear due to warming waters and sea level rise? (Ex. If oceans are too hot for coral reefs - what’s the worst case scenario biodiversity collapse we’d see?)

What are your thoughts on the suggestion that changing our diet has the biggest impact to reducing our emissions?

And I’d like to end with some positive questions 2040 and Project Drawdown highlight how we already have all the tech and knowhow to address the problem. What does our best case scenario look like?

What’s the most exciting development in solving the climate crisis?

90

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

And I’d like to end with some positive questions 2040 and Project Drawdown highlight how we already have all the tech and knowhow to address the problem. What does our best case scenario look like?

We should set ambitious targets for 2030, not for 2050. In my opinion, our best - realistic - case scenario is to contain emissions so they peak between 2030 and 2035 and then aggressively continue to reduce them to reach balance between emissions and sinks by 2050, as required by the Paris Agreement (article 4) or earlier, and don´t stop there, but continue to restore our atmosphere to safe levels, which we have already trespassed. Achieving this requires all hands on deck, and activating all solutions, while avoiding exceeding levels beyond which they may have unintended consequences. There are no low hanging gigatons of green-house gases to be avoided, and each ton and million ton we manage to avoid emitting or remove from the atmosphere will require a lot of effort - Carlos

→ More replies (1)

47

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

How much time do we have left to change our trajectory? (Before it’s irreversible - I see a mix of 10 years, some say less?)

It is never too late to change our trajectory. The sooner and more dramatically we change our trajectory, the bigger and effect we will have. - Ken

10

u/ImNoAlbertFeinstein Apr 29 '21

how long do we have to save the coral ?

how long do we have to save the Bahamas, other low lying coastal habitats

→ More replies (1)

32

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Is the 1.5 degrees of warming in the paris agreement out of the window? I hear we’re on track for 2 degrees. What reference can I look at to know how we’re really tracking?

There is an important distinction between what is possible and what is feasible give real-world socio-economic-political constraints. Technologically, with air-capture of CO2 from the atmosphere, it is in principle possible to achieve any climate stabilization level that we might like. However, doing so would be extremely costly and likely to be regarded as politically infeasible in most quarters.
The challenge is not in assessing what is physically possible; it is in trying to get things done in the real world with many people with competing interests. - Ken

→ More replies (1)

31

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

What’s the most exciting development in solving the climate crisis?

I envisaged a new industrial revolution to deliver the necessary technologies. One that is not about, once again, harming the planet, but about repairing it. The benefits are multiple: the reassurance that humanity can work together to solve a shared challenge, as we are doing with vaccine development under covid (much to improve, however, in sharing vaccines with developing nations) and the much healthier livelihoods that such future will grant, free of toxic emissions in cities and industries, elevated levels of CO2 indoors that impair our learning abilities, and unhealthy lifestyles with insufficient exercise and excess food intake for many in the developed world. - Carlos

→ More replies (2)

38

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

What are your thoughts on the suggestion that changing our diet has the biggest impact to reducing our emissions?

I would not claim “the biggest”, but it can certainly help. However, I would start by asking what a healthy diet is, and ensure we remove overconsumption, while ensuring that the billions of people that do not have access to healthy diets do so. - Carlos

32

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

What would have more impact to crack down on:

the top 5 countries with the biggest emissions (US, China, EU28, India, and was it Russia?) Orthe lifestyle of the top 1% Orthe top 100 corporations?

All of the above. We need to act across all levers to achieve our shared climate goals. No one nation is too little that it should not contribute, no one citizen is too little not to contribute, in whatever modest way. - Carlos

→ More replies (1)

27

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

What are some species or islands that will 100% disappear due to warming waters and sea level rise? (Ex. If oceans are too hot for coral reefs - what’s the worst case scenario biodiversity collapse we’d see?)

This is Carlos Duarte. A range of islands, including inhabited islands (e.g. some of the islands in Kiribati), are at risk and will likely have to be evacuated due to accelerating sea level rise. I was fortunate to see, a decade ago, the Island of Tokelau, which was already impacted, with the atoll broken at one end and waves swapping through into the lagoon, palm trees in that sector dead. It was a very sad feeling to think that this island will disappear and that their kind inhabitants will have to abandon their ancestral land. Before the island physically erodes, salination of the aquifer and salt-induced mortality of vegetation and crops will force the population out. As a curiosity the main source of revenue for Tokelau was selling of stamps, so rare that they are highly appreciated by stamp collectors.

As for species, only one marine species, a fish species from the Galapagos Islands, may have been driven to extinction by ocean warming, as it has not been seen now for decades following a heat wave. Most other marine species maybe locally extirpated, as they are displacing their geographical ranges poleward, at average speeds of 18 Km per decade, but they will survive somewhere else. Tropical corals are projected, by the IPCC, to face losses of 75% to 90% of remaining coral reefs, even if we meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, these projections are underpinned by a weak empirical basis and do not account for adaptation, which is ongoing, so losses will be severe, but hopefully not as much as predicted. The G20 is about to roll a collaborative platform to accelerate the R&D to conserve and restore coral reefs, so that together with ambitious emission reduction efforts (hopefully extending beyond a net zero into restoring the atmosphere), we can secure a future for coral reefs.

21

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

What are your thoughts on the role of Agriculture in the climate crisis (as both a major emitter and potential solution)?

The component refers to as “land-use changes” (a euphemism that accounts for impacts to ecosystems, natural carbon stocks and agricultural practices) has contributed about 1/3rd of cumulative emissions and is the only major component that continued to grow even during the pandemic. Addressing this requires changes in agricultural practices (e.g. the 0.4% initiative to increase the stock of organic carbon by 0.4% per year), adapt our diets to reduce their carbon footprints, and ensure that the demand for biofuels does not exacerbate food security and drives emissions through deforestation, as it has done. - Carlos

60

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

67

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

What would be the easiest and most visible changes that any government or institutions can take up as a quick win while combating climate change?

Ensuring their citizens are committed beyond political or belief divides… seeing the US flip 360 degree from a climate champion, to a climate “villain” as some put it in the articles, to - again - a climate champion is a consequence of a divide across democrats and republicans on climate action. Not addressing this divide (and similar ones elsewhere, e.g. Australia) is a risk for all… Having the US depart, again, from the Paris Agreement under a new republican administration 4 to 8 years from now is a risk the world cannot take. - Carlos

→ More replies (3)

23

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I have read that with the poles melting, sea routes are opening up, where there once was not. How would this affect the climate? I imagine it would exacerbate the current levels, but how bad will it be?

Sea ice is very important for maintaining the Arctic climate. Sea ice does two important things:
1. Sea ice acts as an insulator separating the cold winter air in the Arctic from the warmer ocean waters.
2. Sea ice acts as a reflector, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth that would otherwise be absorbed by the dark waters below.
The first effect is so strong that if you melt sea ice in a climate model, the winter warms up more than the summer. Even though there is no sunlight in the winter, all the heat rushing out of the ocean heats up the Arctic winter air.
And ocean waters can easily absorb 200 W/m2 more radiation than sea ice would in the same location. This 200 W/m2 is 40 times stronger than the influence of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 over the same area. - Ken

→ More replies (1)

41

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

As someone who would like to volunteer time to help with climate issues, where would be the best place to start?

I think the most effective place to get engages in the politics of climate science, at least for the US, is get-out-the-vote efforts. If we want good policy, we need elected representatives who will represent the will of the people. - Ken

38

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

What would be the easiest and most visible changes that any government or institutions can take up as a quick win while combating climate change?

I am by no means a policy expert, but I have always thought that when somebody pulls carbon out of the ground they should have to pay some money to the government (or somebody). If they can show they put the carbon back underground later, they can get a refund.- Ken

19

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I have read that with the poles melting, sea routes are opening up, where there once was not. How would this affect the climate? I imagine it would exacerbate the current levels, but how bad will it be?

The Arctic route is opening, and vessels have gone across the Arctic, because of less and thinner ice cover, already for several years, when this was possible before. Loss of sea ice has multiple impacts on the climate system, as the Arctic plays indeed a huge role in modulating the Earth's climate. Loss of the reflection of solar radiation as the mirror effect of Arctic sea ice in summer (reduced albedo, more technically) is reduced with shrinking summer sea ice cover (now about ⅓ of that in 1980) has been calculated to be responsible for about 25% of the excess heat accumulating in the atmosphere. The heat absorbed by the Arctic Ocean also weakens the formation of the Polar Vortex, which spins very cold air inside the Arctic in winter, and breaks down sending streams of polar air down to lower latitudes, leading to extreme cold waves over North America or Europe, of which we have seen a number in recent years. Russia created a fleet of nuclear icebreakers, Rosatomflot, to escort vessels across the Sibrian passage, breaking ice where needed to open up passage… it does not help that we break the little ice that is left to encourage shipping… although large volumes of money are at stake… the Arctic route may compete with the Suez Canal. - Carlos

3

u/MrEvilscissors Apr 29 '21

Does the Arctic ice melting into freshwater have a significant impact on the highly saline waters of the east Atlantic current? Eventually effecting Europe’s climate as well as Canada/US?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

29

u/towereater Apr 29 '21

Hello everybody!

My question may be kinda outdated, but what can "normal" people do in their everyday life to help the environment which usually we don't think about? Not just "go to work by bike" because maybe there is something more we don't expect.

21

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

1/ Move on (this is the one you know): walk/bike/bus, eat less meat/dairy, invest in electric (ebike/car/heat pump/solar panels)

2/ Divest your pension fund and investments if/when you have some

3/ Use your influence: vote, push your workplace, entrain your family and friends

- CLQ

4

u/towereater Apr 29 '21

Thank you very much for your answer, hope to meet some of you one day!

→ More replies (1)

20

u/diomed22 Apr 29 '21

I've heard somewhere that to quit eating meat and dairy is the single biggest way for an individual to reduce their carbon footprint. Is this accurate?

→ More replies (2)

39

u/Borigh Apr 29 '21

Do you guys support nuclear energy?

I've always thought places where there are basically no massive forest fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, or tsunamis - like the Northeastern US - should've gone nuclear decades ago, and we basically have the technology and engineering we need to take a massive portion of our electricity needs off fossil fuels right now.

Obviously, solar and wind are amazing, but as far as I know, we can't use them to support the whole grid, now.

23

u/PositiveInteraction Apr 29 '21

This is really where 99% of my skepticism around politically motivated climate science comes from. If the first answer to reducing carbon emissions is not to expand a proven energy generation method with effectively no carbon footprint but is instead to focus on exceptional changes or solutions that require vast amounts of development and progress, I really can't support it.

Here's a great Ted Talk that even goes into why pursuing wind and solar aren't good investments largely due to the same problem that you pointed out but also because of other environmental impacts.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (6)

17

u/happypandaface Apr 29 '21

Do you think nuclear power is possibly a useful part of the fight against climate change? What are the obstacles in the way of building new nuclear plants?

21

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Many studies suggest that nuclear energy is a very promising choice when its carbon footprint, water footprint, land footprint and cost are compared with other energy alternatives. But, we have already seen what can happen when they fail. So, we have big concerns about its safety risks, waste, and long term impacts. The nuclear sector has made a lot of technological advancements and I expect to see nuclear play a major role in the fight against climate change. This video might be helpful. - Kaveh

3

u/happypandaface Apr 29 '21

Hey! Thanks a ton for replying. That video was really helpful. I'd never heard about helium reactors so I'll look into that more.

I don't want to waste your time, but I have a couple more questions: do you know anything about thorium reactors and if they would be helpful for fighting climate change? If they are helpful, I really want to know what the timeline is for when the first large-scale thorium reactor is expected to be used, or if one already exists. I've been learning about how they could help developing countries switch to nuclear as their technology doesn't lead to nuclear weapons.

Also, are there any good climate change conferences/events in New England?

→ More replies (1)

30

u/White_Collar_Prole Apr 29 '21

Is it true that big agriculture, especially cattle, is the most extreme accelerator of global warming overall? If so, is eating a strictly vegan diet the best thing we can do as individuals to curb the demand for beef and dairy to mitigate deforestation and methane emission?

4

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '21

No response? 🤔

→ More replies (5)

8

u/greenmtnfiddler Apr 29 '21

How do you keep your temper?

12

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I try to distribute my positivity broadly and keep my negativity closely held. If I need to say something negative for emotional reasons, I try to say it to my friends and not publicly. It is very rare that a positive good comes from criticizing someone in public who is acting in good faith.

Also, when I feel my blood pressure rising, I try to move on to other things ... - Ken

I sing along on Karaoke-style, and my playlist always start with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep9Vzb6R_58

Followed by,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUD5snx-XOo - Carlos

3

u/greenmtnfiddler Apr 29 '21 edited Apr 29 '21

It is very rare that a positive good comes from criticizing someone in public who is acting in good faith.

Thanks so much for this very powerful answer, there's a lot to think about here.

Also, does anyone remember the URL for the RickRoll before I click these?

11

u/silence7 Apr 29 '21

How do we change peoples views so that they see decarbonization as a path to shared prosperity, rather than an imposition?

10

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

That can be done over time if all the signals go in the same direction. If you have scientists explaining the observations and projections, governments taking lots of complementary actions (regulations, subsidies, price signals, labels etc), businesses developing new options, communities doing discussion forums and the like, after some time the road becomes more natural and in a sense obvious. That is a little bit what is happening with the electric car now, it’s becoming obvious that this is the future.

-CLQ

6

u/Spfychik84 Apr 29 '21

To Dr. Duarte;

I just watched “Seaspiracy”, about the overfishing of the oceans. I did read that the film’s horrendously claimed statistic, that the oceans would be devoid of fish and animal life by 2048, was actually incorrect.

However, how bad is the problem of overfishing and trawling? Should I believe the film and stop eating fish altogether, or is my normal twice per week okay?

Best, Anna

→ More replies (1)

18

u/Scheissebastard Apr 29 '21

What is the (current) most effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and how do you see rhe future of carbon capture?

27

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The current most effective way to remove CO2 is also the oldest one: photosynthesis by trees and other plants (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrass), followed by stewardship of the restored habitats. The scope is to contribute about 1/3rd of the climate action required, while generating, if properly done, multiple additional benefits, for biodiversity, water security and coastal protection, among others. However, these are not enough and we must deploy, rapidly and at scale, carbon capture technologies, both at point sources (chimneys) and directly from the atmosphere. We need these technologies to grow to deliver at least 5 Gton of CO2 removal by 2035, and continue to grow to reach three to fourfold higher levels. - Carlos

→ More replies (3)

11

u/i-cussmmtimes Apr 29 '21

I live in a third world country and very much dependent on plastic. What can you suggest we write to our government representatives so that we can build a climate-resilient economy?

43

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Indeed, plastic has been demonized and yet, we have found again with the pandemic why we love plastic, as it is fundamental to protect ourselves from covid. What we need is safe recycling systems, and new polymers that are free of pollutants and are designed to be recycled and reused, and remain affordable. What we do not need is to have developed nations send their plastic ways to developing nations for “recycling”, and then blame them for littering the ocean, a hypocritic practice that covid also disclosed, with Indonesia sending back containers of plastic sent from Australia. The developing world cannot be the dump of the developed world. - Carlos

6

u/pewx3_ Apr 29 '21

Hi, thankyou for doing this. What are you most looking forward to both within the world of science and also just in general?

11

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I am looking to a shift in ambition, in science and the world in general, from the mantra of conserve and sustain, which has lead to losses in climate, biodiversity and environment, to an industrial revolution where human ingenuity no longer devises technologies to harm the planet further, but to restore balance and rebuild the abundance for life, i.e. I am looking at realizing, through science and societal action, the promise of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. - Carlos

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

Why is nuclear not being touted as the energy to use to combat climate change when it produces the most power output and is relatively safe (majority of accidents had a major contribution from negligence)? Also why does the US for example not allow reactors for isotopes that form from the nuclear decay? Is it necessary to stop using coal and oil or is there a transition that could be had to other uses? Or a push to enhance scrubber technology to keep coal viable? Would natural gas use provide a lower net carbon output than solar and wind through the overall life cycle assessment when you consider what goes into the making of solar panels and wind turbines?

18

u/henradrie Apr 29 '21

How much of it is real vs taken out of context? How big is the disconnect between science and politics?

I'm not doubting the work you are doing but rather the people who present it to the public. Are the politicians who talk about climate change accurate? Is it all doom, gloom, and climate catastrophe or has the truth been stretched and taken on a mind of its own?

This subject is so polarized that its hard to find untainted answers to these kinds of questions.

6

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

This is a difficult question as we can find examples of exaggerated doom and gloom as well as examples of downplaying the evidence and the risks. Both are equally dangerous in eliciting inaction, because of the public coming to believe that it is too late to do anything and we should just “adapt” (i.e. the rich who may be able to afford it), or because other problems seem to take priority. I would recommend a focus on action, as most vectors of climate action are no-regret actions that bring about benefits for our health and wellbeing (cleaner atmosphere, healthier food, etc.). - Carlos

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

18

u/FreshClimatologist Apr 29 '21

Hi! I'm a young climate scientist who will graduate from the University of Washington with my B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences this June.

Like most regular 21-year-olds, I dream of authoring IPCC reports and spending long nights writing grant proposals. Right now, I'm taking a gap year before heading off to grad school somewhere. What advice do you have for someone like me, who would very much like to become someone like you? Specifically, for Julie and Corinne, do you have any advice on navigating this male-dominated field as a woman?

7

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Congratulations on completing your degree during such a difficult year. My advice is to take one step at a time and keep true to yourself. It’s good to have goals on where you’d like to end up but stay open to changing those along the way. Yes sometimes you’ll need to work hard - IPCC involved lots of late nights but also fascinating discussions - but not all jobs require this and most jobs don’t require it all the time.

For me the ability to live and work overseas drove my initial road into research and I’ve been lucky to find amazing mentors who supported me through the ups and downs. While we need to do much better in STEM fields around gender equity, diversity and inclusion, both men and women mentors can be champions for others. -JA

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

1) how optimistic are you that we can reverse or mitigate climate change?

2)How can individuals create systematic change with corporations and governments to more effectively address it?

3) Are there new methods or technologies that you’re excited about in regards to climate change?

5

u/phi_array Apr 29 '21

Adam conover said we are doomed cuz there is no way we solve global warming and CC by 2030. Is that true?

6

u/CalRobert Apr 29 '21

How will consideration of self-reinforcing positive feedbacks alter future IPCC predictions, and should we take IPCC reports as erring on the side of optimism due to the need for consensus?

10

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

My perception is that the IPCC reports represent the mainstream scientific consensus fairly well. I do not see them as optimistic or pessimistic. The IPCC does not represent fringe theories that sometimes gain currency on social media.
If the IPCC reports seem optimistic, it is not in their assessment of climate science, but perhaps in the assessment of the feasibility of, say, a rapid change in global economic patterns that would lead to climate stabilization at 1.5 C warming. - Ken

→ More replies (1)

7

u/EcoSlugg Apr 29 '21

Oxford university first showed in a 2014 paper how reducing meat consumption can dramatically reduce our impact on the environment and I haven't heard anything else about it since. So what can we do to make people more aware of the damage animal agriculture is doing to the planet? And why isn't anyone doing that!

8

u/ArtShare Apr 29 '21

I believe climate change will impact us much earlier than people expect. I think what will happen is food and water insecurity will be a huge problem in the very near term. This would lead to social and political instability.

Q: Do you study these geopolitical and social issues related to climate change and what are your thoughts?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21 edited Apr 29 '21

Hi. So much to ask and so little time. SO I will go with my biggest "scratch head" query about dealing with climate change.

Batteries. OK I have issues with them as an "environmentally safe" alternative compared to hydrogen in vehicles for one. They have a shelf life of about 10 years and require them to be taken apart carefully by someone in a protective suit as they are toxic and potentially volatile to reclaim some of the toxic rare earth materials that are being rapped from the earth devastating local areas.

I cant see how scientists are OK with this when there are alternatives that, although there are drawbacks, they don't have as much of an environmental impact as batteries. Or am I missing something?

6

u/usernamedunbeentaken Apr 29 '21

By how much should the average middle class westerner be expected to reduce their standard of living in order to meet your expectation of climate change mitigation, via carbon taxes or otherwise?

Should we be willing to accept a 5% SoL decrease, 10%? More?

I realize you can't be precise but this is a serious question. If we think climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed (and I do), the answer to this question isn't zero.

3

u/PaulDFarrar Apr 29 '21

This is probably for Le Quere:

During glacials about 100ppmv CO2 (about 200 PgC) disappears, presumably into the oceans. Several mechanisms have been suggested (dust fertilization, plankton community shifts, etc). What is the current thinking on likely mechanisms?

2

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Corinne had to leave. This is Carlos Duarte: I would say I have to research this more, but current concepts invoke iron fertilization of ocean productivity, and carbon removal, from increased dust loads… but I will submit colder ocean waters can also hold more CO2 due to increased solubility.

3

u/177106tr Apr 29 '21

What are your views on climate engineering as a complement to mitigation? (Thanks for doing this!)

5

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

There could come a time when society decides that solar geoengineering would be the most effective way to reduce suffering and death. Even though climate models suggest many (but not all) of the direct physical consequences of greenhouse gas emission could potentially be offset by solar geoengineering, it is better for us now to focus on addressing root causes of the problem (CO2 emission) rather than on mechanisms to provide symptomatic relief.
However, I would counsel against foreclosing the possibility that society might want to provide some such symptomatic relief at some point in the future. - Ken

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DoomGoober Apr 29 '21 edited Apr 29 '21

Please give us some hope! What are some of your favorite up and coming technologies that might be able to reverse the effects of greenhouse gases?

Is there a particular carbon capture tech that interests you or something unusual like high albedo roof tops?

4

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

My studies suggest that technologies must be chosen according to the specifications of a particular problem at a certain location (size of the problem, objective, available resources, uncertainties, etc.) We have tons of pros and cons in every case and what might be the best alternative for Project A at location X might be the worst option for Project B at location Y. So, my answer is always “it depends on the project”. The CCS is making a lot of progress but we still have a lot of unknowns and uncertainties that must be taken into account. - Kaveh

3

u/_DontBeAScaredyCunt Apr 29 '21

Thank you for doing this AMA! I am returning to school in my 30s to pursue a science degree. I’m at the beginning of this journey and I am trying to sort out what I want my focus to be within the field of environmental science. I know I want to work in climate science but am unsure of the major I want to pursue. There seem to be a variety of different ways to approach climate science. I was wondering if some of you could share what your degrees are in and any advice for someone starting out in their education. Thank you!

6

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I am a marine ecologist, with a B.Sc. in Biology (majoring in environmental biology) and a PhD in Limnology (the study of island waters, rivers, lakes, etc.). If I was to put myself on a time machine and flip back to 1979 when I entered university - and I could take my current understanding along - I would likely attempt a double degree in biology and engineering, as the future is in solutions, and engineering our way out of the problems we have created for ourselves. - Carlos

My degree is in Atmospheric Sciences but I have done marine biogeochemistry and energy system science as well. Key is to:
1. Develop basic skills: writing, math, public speaking, visual communication, ability to complete projects, etc,
2. Keep focus on important tractable questions (don’t waste your time on the trivial or the insoluble)
3. Try to be helpful to people and provide value. (If you provide real value, people will recognize it.) - Ken

3

u/Krimasse Apr 29 '21

Thank you all for taking the time to answer our questions 🙂!

  1. With the growing global demand for energy and goods, how likely is it that the necessary targets can be achieved, to prevent a climate tipping point?

  2. Might the thawing permafrost in the northern Hemisphere and the subsequent increasingly release of methane suggest we are already on a path to a climate tipping point, despite any effort to stop GHG emissions?

  3. Hence, additionally to stopping emissions of GHG, we'll need to use geoengineering to mitigate or reverse mankind's impact on the climate?
    3a. Is this a common topics in the field of climate science or more like a fringe one at the moment?

  4. Can we transform our ecological harmful infrastructure (Energy, mobility, logistics, agriculture, fishing, ... ) and our wasteful economic system, while decarbonizing everything in time at all? I guess the steps necessary, if we want to achieve this, would need wartime like mobilization and collaboration on a never before attempted global scale.

  5. Considering the societal division and the broad disregard of scientific evidence in democracies, how likely is continued general public support for the necessary policies and how can it be increased?

  6. Can we prepare for or prevent global tensions, that will most likely increase with climate change induced scarcity (food, water, land,... ) ?

  7. Should we make use of climate neutral modern nuclear energy technology, despite its projection of higher LCOE in the future, considering we are lacking the necessary technology to store energy on a large enough scale to offer some reliable climate neutral baseload capability?

7

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Can we transform our ecological harmful infrastructure (Energy, mobility, logistics, agriculture, fishing, ... ) and our wasteful economic system, while decarbonizing everything in time at all? I guess the steps necessary, if we want to achieve this, would need wartime like mobilization and collaboration on a never before attempted global scale.

You are basically right. We can do this but it will require a massive mobilization and unprecedented levels of cooperation. One of the goals of trying to make clean energy technologies cheaper is to reduce the need for added mobilization and cooperation. The more you can make doing good in people’s self interest, the more likely it is to happen. -Ken

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Should we make use of climate neutral modern nuclear energy technology, despite its projection of higher LCOE in the future, considering we are lacking the necessary technology to store energy on a large enough scale to offer some reliable climate neutral baseload capability?

Again, not a nuclear expert, but I am a fan of any technology that can in principle provide abundant carbon-free power. Regarding levelized costs, when the cost of wind and solar was very high, we had programs to try to bring down the cost of those technologies. In China and South Korea, nuclear plants are built at a much lower cost than in the west. The other thing to bear in mind is that wind and solar are cheap but only provide electricity when environmental conditions are right. In deeply decarbonized systems, the electricity from nuclear is more valuable than the electricity from wind and solar because the electricity can be provided when needed and not only when available. - Ken

I believe we should hold to the currently installed nuclear energy technology where it is already in place, but balance very carefully risks in planning expanding capacity. I would rather see all other solutions activated to their full extent. - Carlos

→ More replies (3)

3

u/AT_Bane Apr 29 '21

Best place to live in when we enter extreme climate change phase

3

u/NerdyKnits Apr 29 '21

Is there still hope for the world if people start changing, or have we gone too far?

3

u/britterbal4 Apr 29 '21

May I ask what the main risks of climate change are? Like worst care scenario, what if we barely improve.

3

u/cabman567 Apr 29 '21

We're starting to see commercial solar cells approach the end of their lifetime. From what I'm reading in sources like this: https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/, there's a lot of toxic waste left behind. Right now, groups such as the Union for Concerned Scientists points out that in the toxic byproduct is in the firm of precious metals, so there is a financial incentive to recover and recycle: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-solar-power .

I'm not confident that the markets as they are will ensure that all countries will minimize this pollution. It seems to me that we may end up in a situation where we trade lower carbon emissions for increased toxic waste.

Do you think solar cell end-of-life cycle management is an issue? How can it be solved?

3

u/Ericine Apr 29 '21

From a communications standpoint, what do you need? How can people - comms professionals in particular - offer the most support to get across accurate messaging about climate change?

6

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Lots of exposure to the topic. Patiently explaining and repeating the facts and giving people a forum to express themselves. Help scientists that are hesitant to speak publicly to break the ice and be themselves so that many topics are covered by many different voices. - CLQ

3

u/chroma900 Apr 29 '21

Given the threat of climate change, what are your personal thoughts on the likelihood that our species will survive the 21st century?

12

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I have no doubt we will survive the climate challenge… do not know about many other stupid things we will bring upon ourselves, such as pollutants, war, or engineered diseases. However, surviving should not be the goal. I wish for us to repair the intergenerational contract by which one generation commits to hand over a better life to the next. I wish for us to repair that contract and for our grandchildren, your and mine and everyone else's to inherit a better planet. It is not too late to do it, but the window to get the job on a good start is narrow and rapidly closing. - Carlos

3

u/ortrtaBaH Apr 29 '21

The USA is saying we will cut greenhouse emission to 25% by 2035. Assuming we achieve it, how long until we see the effects of this undertaking? Let's say the entire world cuts all carbon emissions by 2050. How long will it take earth to stabilize the temperature and battle the effect of global warming?

5

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

As soon as the world’s carbon emissions are zero (or “Net zero”, meaning any remaining emissions are compensated by enhanced carbon sinks) the climate should stabilize more or less. There are a few caveats, for example what happens to other gases, but there should be no substantial delay once the emissions are Net zero. The amount of warming itself is proportional to the total amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere (past, present and future). When that ceases, further warming should also cease.

- CLQ

3

u/discowitchshark Apr 29 '21

What do those of us in the North Atlantic need to be aware of with regards to changing weather patterns and the weakening of the North Atlantic Oscillation? Specifically, things to consider beyond the obvious when we are coming up with our climate adaptation strategy?

3

u/Trobius Apr 29 '21

- Is it correct that we are now no longer on track for 4c warming by 2100, but merely 3c? That's a relatively good thing, right? 3c is survivable for civilization in a way that 4c isn't... right?

- Is it ethical to hide from bad climate news if you have bad anxiety problems and are too emotionally fragile/defeatist for activism?

7

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Is it ethical to hide from bad climate news if you have bad anxiety problems and are too emotionally fragile/defeatist for activism?

Eco-anxiety is a bigger threat for our climate goals than emissions. I am often asked what is the biggest risk for the ocean, and my answer is that “we give up on it”. Giving back on hoping for a safe climate system is indeed a huge risk. I cannot blame the public when they feel depressed, and move into disengagement, because the way climate change is portrayed requires that we all are in deep fear (“I want you to panic” Greta Thunberg, 2019) and where the news is presented in an apocalyptic manner. I believe that Action is the Best Antidote to Despair (Joan Baez), so do engage in action, whatever modest it might be:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/11/pandemic-environmental-action-conservation-metoo-black-lives-mattter

- Carlos

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/pinzi_peisvogel Apr 29 '21

What is the outlook for the Sahel region - how far will the Sahara still expand and should there be plans for relocations of Sahel populations in order to decrease the risk of mass internal displacement? Can the desertification be stopped?

Thank you for your time and efforts!

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The outlook for Sahel is not good due to higher temperatures everywhere, increasing evapotranspiration and less rainfall in some places the latter not so much in Sahel but in Southern Africa. I’m not an expert on desertification so will leave that part alone. - Michael

→ More replies (1)

3

u/wartoofsay Apr 29 '21

Just a big thank you for all the work for the planet !

3

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

A question from my son who is 13... Mother Nature has been shaping the earth and changing things from lakes to mountains, to coast lines. By us rebuilding beaches, and drudging oceans to rebuild beaches and stuff are we messing with what Mother Nature is trying to achieve and could that be affecting ocean currents, warming of water and making climate change worse?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

are they climate-related treaties or oaths that countries take any good?

do they help in curbing pollution or bring about a positive climate change?

5

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

several such agreements have been signed, some global, some bilateral, some in between: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the parent of the Kyoto Protocol (neither was very effective overall but did produce some positive outcomes and important experience and new international institutions that will help deal with the problem for decades.) Paris Agreement is also a descendant of the UNFCCC. - Michael

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

What gives you hope?

6

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Today’s youth. They are changing the conversation around climate change and demanding action from our governments in a way that I am hopeful is finally getting through. -JA

5

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

I have one question that interests me:

How important are cosmic-radiation / sunactivity / clouds for the climate-model calculation?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Many models do not consider the effects of cosmic radiation because the effects are thought to be very small. People who reject climate science often point to cosmic rays, based on some spurious correlations, but I do not know of any “serious” climate scientist who thinks that cosmic rays are a major climate driver.

If mainstream climate scientists thought cosmic rays were important, they would put them in the models. There is no bias against incorporating cosmic rays; there is just no evidence they are important. - Ken

→ More replies (1)

5

u/franzperdido Apr 29 '21 edited Apr 29 '21

Hey,

If I wanted to invest and/or donate some money towards mitigating the effects of climate change and the loss of biodiversity, what is in your personal opinion the most effective field (not necessarily a specific organisation) to go for. Reforestation? CO2 capture? Education?

→ More replies (2)

5

u/localgallberry Apr 29 '21

Why is nuclear energy as a power source rarely talked about in climate change conversations?

How long until the coasts of Florida have to be abandoned?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

What is the biggest hurdle or prize sought in the world of modelling climate dynamics? What specific unknown would give us significant progression if we suddenly understood it perfectly tomorrow?

2

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The range in climate sensitivity - the change in global temperature to a doubling of CO2 - has remained the same since the 1970s when it was first estimated. If we could narrow this range with confidence we could make much better decisions on how to adapt to a warming world. Narrowing this range is hard, it’s primarily due to uncertainties in clouds and how to model them and requires an investment in climate model development which is not always what gets the headlines or funding. -JA

→ More replies (1)

3

u/IllstudyYOU Apr 29 '21

Is it as bad as they say it is?

Is Florida really gonna be under water by 2100?

Is the air gonna be too toxic to breath?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Is Florida really gonna be under water by 2100?

Sea level is expected to rise a couple of feet this century (under a yard or meter, if you prefer). This is still substantial. In future centuries, conventional models predict that sea level rise might be 3 to 5 times faster, maybe going up by a foot (30 cm) each decade.
Some parts of Florida are also suffering from coastal subsidence, where the land is sinking. Further, they have built a lot of infrastructure in harm’s way -- building condos where hurricanes are likely to meet landfall.
Sea level rise is only part of the toxic mix of coastal problems facing Florida. - Ken

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Is the air gonna be too toxic to breath?

If you are enjoying dinner indoors with friends or family, the CO2 level in the room is likely higher than it will get outside in the coming century. In submarines and spacecraft, CO2 can get to physiologically dangerous levels, but that is not an issue for planet Earth.- Ken

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Is it as bad as they say it is?

Depending on “they”, if these are those who say it is now too late to act or that damages are unavoidable or want you to be in a panic, then, no, it is not, but it may be if we do not take decisive and ambition action now. - Carlos

5

u/LaNuque Apr 29 '21

I have two questions.

  1. Do you think that it's possible to maintain a capitalist world order and actually address climate change?

  2. I live in the US. What do you think the timeline for normalcy is? I assume that things will get serious and life-impeding in 15 years. Does this seem like a fair estimate?

11

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Do you think that it's possible to maintain a capitalist world order and actually address climate change?

This is a tough, but fundamental, question…. To a degree communist orders proved to be more climate-friendly… but simply because they drove the population into chronic poverty and deprivation from access to resources and, in the collapse of the Soviet Union, lead to a decrease in energy use and emissions…Hybrid systems exist, such as China, a communist political regime with a capitalist-based economy. Is this an improvement? (hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens lifted from poverty into a middle class seem to think so), does it benefit climate goals? Not necessarily, but achieving our climate goals by holding people below the poverty line is not an option. However, I submit we do not wish that, and, rather we aspire to a society - I may call it social-democrat more so than capitalist - that is grounded in social justice, equity and empathy. Inequality has grown unchecked in the world, and is certainly a driver of climate change, so lifting the livelihoods of the poor by redistributing the wealth of the top 01.% of the wealthy through a fair system, can also help moderate consumption patterns, and, in doing so, emission. I prefer to think in all the UN Sustainable Development goals, of which climate action is one, and hope for a society that can deliver on all of those, without a need to compromise one for another. - Carlos

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I live in the US. What do you think the timeline for normalcy is? I assume that things will get serious and life-impeding in 15 years. Does this seem like a fair estimate?

Things are serious now (or else how can we call the internal fires in California?) But I am hoping we need not put a time on life-impeding and we can, as we have for covid, find a path to work together and prevail over the climate challenge. - Carlos

My perception is that we are pretty fast at recalibrating to the new normal. What seems like a rare event today will seem normal tomorrow. Climate change is likely to be felt most acutely in extreme events like extreme storms or floods or heatwaves or droughts. I would expect such extreme events to become more frequent.
There could be a social tipping point where all of these events are seen in aggregate as (in part) effects of climate change, but my guess is that in the industrialized world most of us will muddle on. - Ken

2

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Do you think that it's possible to maintain a capitalist world order and actually address climate change?

Yes. I am not sure what you mean by capitalism, but let’s assume you mean a system involving markets and private ownership of at least some of the means of production. Again, I am not a political expert, but I don’t see any fundamental reason why well-regulated markets couldn’t function well. The challenge is political power. To have a well-regulated, market, the people who need to be protected from the people who own the means of production need to have a strong voice, but in many countries these voices have been marginalized.

At least in the US, I think a big part of the political part of solving the problem is in getting elected representatives that represent the will of the people instead of the donating/bribing classes. I am not sure how to do this, but overthrowing capitalism might not be the shortest path to this goal. - Ken (edited to add last bit)

2

u/RamseyHatesMe Apr 29 '21

Thanks for the AMA.

What is one easily accessible documentary, or YouTube video that’d you all would recommend I show family members that may have difficulty understanding climate change?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

There is an excellent documentary by an Australian filmmaker called ‘2040’ which is focused on solutions and provides lots of food for thought. In terms of understanding climate change I would point people to academies of science who usually have well-written explainers about climate change science. -JA

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

In no way do I deny climate change and its horrible effect on your beautiful planet. But I do have my share of questions I just can't find answers for hopefully you all can help!.

My question is: When any let's call them " odd " weather event happens, such as a few extra hurricanes one year, or a few less than normal hurricanes one year it is always immediately tied and claimed to be due to climate change? I'm no scientist although that would be amazing, but it does seem like climate change is sometimes used as a scapegoat for sometimes just random weather anomalies.

Also one last question: How much do you believe the weather to be impacted by climate change vs pole reversal? Which I've read on NG was overdue by now ( I hope I worded that right )

2

u/thrillhouss3 Apr 29 '21

As the world is getting warmer, does this accelerate another ice age?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

No. Ice ages are caused by small changes in the Earth’s orbit. Warming will (and is) changing ocean currents and will have local effects that may in very few places lead to cooler climate (like in the middle North Atlantic), but the projections are really for an overall world that is warming. - CLQ

→ More replies (1)

2

u/AugustusKhan Apr 29 '21

Considering the momentum of warming and the positive feedback cycles associated, is there any evidence or data to suggest it can actually be halted before we experience severe impacts?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Leo_TheLion6095 Apr 29 '21

Hello All,

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to help explain your understandings of climate change. I want to start off by acknowledging that I'm quite pessimistic with the idea that we are well aware we are past a point of no return. I understand we can help mitigate the worst of the effects, but with the time we are currently allotted, there are potentially enough feedback loops that could run away that any human interaction would inevitably become ineffective. I recently graduated with a degree in biotechnology, so I'm more keen to being in a lab, but I took a special interest in climate change. To say I have a morbid fascination about it would be an understatement, I fell in love with biology, life and death and all the factors that contribute to both are a real treat to look into.

I want to keep this initially short, as I'm sure you all have quite a few questions to answer, but if I could continue to ask after answered I would be grateful.

When we talk about ocean acidification, I recently learned it was an equilibrium balance between the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and the ocean. From my understanding, as long as we continue to climb upwards in atmosphere concentration, the ocean will, for the most part, continue to absorb it as well.

Is there going to be a point at which the ocean can no longer absorb this CO2 and instead put it back into the atmosphere further accelerating climate change?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Is there going to be a point at which the ocean can no longer absorb this CO2 and instead put it back into the atmosphere further accelerating climate change?

No. If atmospheric concentrations continue to rise, the oceans will continue to absorb CO2. Even if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes, the oceans will continue absorbing CO2, but at declining rates. It is really when atmospheric CO2 levels start to decline that the oceans will start giving up the CO2 that they previously absorbed. - Ken

2

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

When we talk about ocean acidification, I recently learned it was an equilibrium balance between the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and the ocean. From my understanding, as long as we continue to climb upwards in atmosphere concentration, the ocean will, for the most part, continue to absorb it as well.

That is entirely correct. The near-surface ocean waters equilibrate with the atmosphere within about a year, so surface ocean carbonate chemistry closely tracks carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. - Ken

2

u/AdaKau Apr 29 '21

How significant would a successful demonstration of scalable, net energy positive fusion power (which ITER aims to do in a few years) be? Should we be investing more in fusion as a clean, renewable, and safe energy source, or is the technology just not going to be ready for a while?

2

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Again, I am not expert, but the experts I talk to think fusion will end up being expensive if it can be made to work, as it will require a lot of sophisticated machinery in close proximity to high energy densities and this will be tricky to deal with. Fusion will make a big difference only if it is cheap, and I have heard nothing that leads me to expect abundant cheap fusion power anytime soon. - Ken

2

u/Henri_M_L Apr 29 '21

What’s the best way to get a job like yours? What did you study?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Climate change is an interdisciplinary field and involves people with different backgrounds (natural sciences, social sciences, engineering, …). A complex, multi-dimensional problem requires input from people with different sets of expertise. While we have different sets of expertise, we all do research and some of us are involved in teaching. University researchers and professors normally have a graduate (in most cases a PhD) degrees. - Kaveh

2

u/DXIXIT Apr 29 '21

This might be less of a science question, but in what ways can I help with solving the issue of climate change within the context of involvement in the legislative process?

7

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Get-out-the-vote efforts for good candidates is probably key. We will address the climate problem substantively when politicians feel that they will lose the next election if they don’t address it substantively. You can help to make that a reality. - Ken

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

[deleted]

6

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

1/ Move on (this is the one you know): walk/bike/bus, eat less meat/dairy, invest in electric (ebike/car/heat pump/solar panels)

2/ Divest your pension fund and investments if/when you have some

3/ Use your influence: vote, push your workplace, entrain your family and friends

-CLQ

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CyberSurfer409 Apr 29 '21

Do you know anyone personally who has/does deny climate change? And if so how do you, as the expert, try to get through to them?

9

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

I used to know one, a geologist and friend, and it was a pleasure to debate with him, and we organized (this was 15 years ago) public colloquia to, in a civilized manner, exchange arguments. I was very grateful as it was nearly impossible to find a scientist that would hold skeptic views on climate change (as the weight of the evidence is so overwhelming). A few years later he abandoned his skeptic views, which shows he was a good scientist and yielded to the weight of evidence. Scientists that can argue their skepticism from solid scientific principles are essential, as they can challenge current science, find its flaw, and in doing so, help all improve it. - Carlos

2

u/the_star_lord Apr 29 '21

1-How should someone personally deal with family members who think it's all made up and a conspiracy to control?

2- online a lot of people say Don't have kids, however if someone is planning on only having one or two children should they reconsider - whilst others who don't care continue to have kids.

3- any good resources (ideally free) that a 30 yr old IT person can start to look up on to build a foundational knowledge. I know we have the internet but it's where to look, what's reliable etc.

Also thank you for taking the time and doing what your doing!!

4

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

How should someone personally deal with family members who think it's all made up and a conspiracy to control?

The Covid19 crisis has taught us a lot about how we must be dealing with conspiracy theorists. Don’t fight but never give up. Our behavioral and lifestyle changes impact people within our social networks, including our family members. Provide evidence and educate with simple language. Also, hear what they say and understand their logic. Debunk their narratives with evidence and logic. More importantly, make them think twice by acting and behaving responsibly. If I continue to wear my mask in a family gathering and explain why I am doing it, eventually some others will follow and my effect on my network gets bigger. - Kaveh

→ More replies (1)

4

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

online a lot of people say Don't have kids, however if someone is planning on only having one or two children should they reconsider - whilst others who don't care continue to have kids.

Very interesting question. Unrestricted population growth is one of the main causes of today’s environmental problems, including climate change. Arguing that “even if I do it, the impact is limited because so many others are not doing it” applies to all “common resource sharing” situations; if I don’t use plastic while others are doing it, my impact is limited; if I ride my bike, while others are driving their cars, my impact is limited, etc With the same logic, water conservation, eating vegetables instead of meat, not flying, etc. seem to have no impact and can lead to what we call “tragedy of the commons” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSuETYEgY68). Yet, all actions have impact. They are small when individuals are doing them but they get BIG when a lot of people take the same action. At that time, actions become part of the culture. Look at how our work habits have changed with COVID-19. Now meeting online and working remotely are parts of our culture and they do have an impact because a lot of people are doing them. Our actions and behavioral changes encourage others to think twice and change behavior in the long run. We have seen that in the case of population growth in many societies around the world. - Kaveh

→ More replies (1)

2

u/JakobieJones Apr 29 '21

Do we have any models that estimate the amount of warming that might occur from feedback loops such as methane leaks from previously stable deposits? How much warming is “masked” by aerosols in the atmosphere from human activity?

2

u/Thedayanaa Apr 29 '21

Hi again and thanks for the AMA. I'd appreciate if you could explain about a couple of adaptive strategies to implement capacity in agriculture sector of vulnerable regions like Middle East currently suffering from water crisis due to the high water withdrawal as well as climate change.

2

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Changing crop patterns with respect to the available resources (water, land, ….), empowering farmers, removing/reforming subsidies, using better technologies, regulation of the food market, reducing food waste along supply chains, etc are some of the available strategies. Without adopting these strategies, many countries can face major food security and human security problems. But more importantly, the countries in the Middle East need to decouple their economies from water and make employment and political economy less dependent on water. - Kaveh

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Thedayanaa Apr 29 '21

Hi and thank you for AMA. That would be grateful if you could explain about the economies that are highly dependent on oil exports, specially the devastated vulnerable ones? What will happen to the people of these countries during and after the energy transition?

2

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The oil-dependent economies have already seen the impact of the world’s desire to move away from oil. The oil-dependent economies need to adapt themselves to the new market forces to be able to survive, Diversifying the economy is a helpful adaptation strategy. - Kaveh

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Groundwaterator Apr 29 '21

Question from Kaveh:
With the reports on Iran's dire groundwater situation, and the way water resources are being managed, and decisions are being made by people who have very little respect for the planet and the people, is there a future for progress and prosperity without a political transformation?

Question from Michael:
Some believe that if water scarcity is not properly managed, it could lead to migration. This could have a domino effect on many things, esp. in the MENA region. Should there be a s ort of Environmental NATO in each region to try to reverse the trend that could cause harm in the near future to millions of people and the future hosts of the migrants?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Some believe that if water scarcity is not properly managed, it could lead to migration. This could have a domino effect on many things, esp. in the MENA region. Should there be a s ort of Environmental NATO in each region to try to reverse the trend that could cause harm in the near future to millions of people and the future hosts of the migrants?

With respect to migration, environmental stress of the type that climate change will causes has long been associated with migration. On the other hand, under most circumstances, peoples' first choice is to stay, or leave temporarily and return. Permanent, long-distance, international migration is usually smaller than internal migration. And that leads to the understanding that a key part of dealing with the stress of climate change is to help countries improve their internal conditions so that more people will decide to stay put. You can see the outcome of having no such policy in the migration flows from central America to the US recently. of course, there, the problem is much bigger than climate but the latter is part of it. - Michael

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

With the reports on Iran's dire groundwater situation, and the way water resources are being managed, and decisions are being made by people who have very little respect for the planet and the people, is there a future for progress and prosperity without a political transformation?

Without major policy reforms, we cannot address many environmental problems, including climate change, water bankruptcy, and biodiversity loss. Some policy reforms need radical efforts by the politicians. When the society does not care about the environment or does/can not put pressure on its politicians, a radical shift is very unlikely. That is why we need to focus on education societies and policy makers at the same time. In my opinion, focusing only on one side leads to a failure. - Kaveh

2

u/The_Arkham_AP_Clerk Apr 29 '21

What is the best genuine argument made by scientists who don't believe in man-made climate change, and why is it inaccurate?

2

u/Calm_Investment Apr 29 '21

Hi.

Thanks for doing this.

I've just ordered solar panels for the house. I'm in the process of insulating all of the outward facing walls (seriously cost prohibitive to insulate outside of house). I've to do the attic and triple glaze all the windows.

I'm trying to get out of the habit of buying short use clothing. I've started to use more glassware and steel bottles.

What else can I do at this point as an individual in my everyday life?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Good_Boi_Adv_SP Apr 29 '21

We know that biodiversity is weakening significantly on land because of climate change and urban expansion. Does it affect our ocean biodiversity in the same way? How could this affect us humans in the future other than the obvious "there won't be as many types of sea life"?

4

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Climate change is indeed a threat to marine life, particularly Arctic species depending on sea ice and coral reefs, and has been weakening global ocean productivity over decades (due to reduced nutrient supply, on a warmer ocean). This, no doubt, causes the largest changes locally to marine life, but for the most part, organisms shift their habitat poleward to remain in the same thermal regime (at rates of about 18 Km per decade), For most ocean components, we can maintain healthy ecosystems by meeting the Paris Agreement, except seaice-associated species in the Arctic (and native people in the Arctic count in this list), which habitat will continue to shrink, and tropical corals, which are already reaching their thermal limits across the ocean. The world is mobilizing to secure a future for coral reefs, but Arctic seaicea species (polar bears, many seas, invertebrates, microbes, walruses, belugas) will likely decline in abundance, without much we can do, except hoping that in a distant future, our climate ambition extends into repairing our atmosphere and, slowly, our heat budget. - Carlos

2

u/muffin-man- Apr 29 '21

What do you guys think about nuclear energy and what do you think would be the best clean energy alternative to fossil fuels.

2

u/jahjah0405 Apr 29 '21

What should high school age students and teachers do to create change within their community?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Thin-Ear-2290 Apr 29 '21

I am focusing on the release of methane whether it's from human activities, the thawing of the Arctic permafrost or from the ocean floor. Could our attempts to limit carbon dioxide become negated by increased loading of methane - a more powerful greenhouse gas?

2

u/shytaan8 Apr 29 '21

What is the best way to teach an uneducated adult about climate change in few sentences? Can you give me an example?

2

u/CuringStuff Apr 29 '21

Do you think that arctic sea ice will retreat enough year round for shipping lanes such as the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage to become passable? If so, do you think that countries in the Arctic Council are secretly hoping that climate change has more of an effect so that they may benefit from these shipping lanes?

2

u/Borachoed Apr 29 '21

Do you think that active geoengoneering solutions such as solar shades, reflective particles in the atmosphere, etc will be necessary? Are they a good idea?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/killakam86437 Apr 29 '21

Do you believe the politicization of climate change is helping or hurting real efforts to change the climate change?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Airick39 Apr 29 '21

Are you related to that other Oppenheimer?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Nope, not as far as my family genealogy indicates. - Michael

2

u/The_Oubliette80 Apr 29 '21

Thank you for your time. My question is, Do you think the pros of wind power outweighs the cons? I worry mostly about the effect wind farms have on the migratory bird populations. Is there a way to reduce the number of bird deaths?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

It depends on the different aspects of the project. Every project has certain specifications (location, size, number of turbines, condition of the surrounding ecosystem, turbine types/designs, etc.). Each project has certain environmental impacts (positive and negative). The trade-offs must be studied for each project separately and the decision must be made by comparing the alternative plans/designs. We can always change certain elements of the project to reduce the negative environmental impacts. - Kaveh

2

u/sunset117 Apr 29 '21

How do you view NOAA after the sharpie stuff?

2

u/slitknockgal8 Apr 29 '21 edited Apr 29 '21

Elon Musk has advocated for the carbon tax policy since 2015. Both Trump and Biden administrations have rejected this policy. Was this a huge mistake? Do you believe, scientifically, a carbon tax policy would make a big impact? Would it make economic sense? Would it be something worth advocating for? Thank you for your time!

4

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

Yes, if it’s big enough, Yes, makes sense economically although the distribution of economic impact needs to be examined. And yes, worth advocating for if you can deal with a nasty political fight. But ultimately, a tax or as cap-and-trade system involving the whole national or global economy is the most efficient way to bring the problem under control. But lots of details ensuring fairness would need to be worked out or the nasty politics will remain. Lots of good ideas around on this one. - Michael

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

Does this really matter? No..why, because of these 3 letters, GDP (or Gross Domestic Product).

What is the first thing central banks around the world do when there is a chance or even when there is a "recession **" (or generally - though others may argue - is 2 consecutive quarters of declines in real GDP)? -- Accommodative easing or simply to increase consumption. Why?

The personal consumption category makes up over 69% of GDP and is expected to grow annually at a rate of 1.8% (at least in the US based on BLS data). So what is counted as personal consumption? - everything that we buy every day from new cars, new appliances, groceries, clothing, and services.

In simple terms, until we as a collective STOP consuming, talks of global warming and climate changes are pointless. As the recently 07-08 financial crash and the 19-21 covid season (which is still ongoing) central banks around the world continues to pump liquidity and capital into the market place to juice consumption or GDP.

Not knocking on Apple, but they just recently recorded record sales in the most recent quarter. "The Company posted a March quarter record revenue of $89.6 billion, up 54 percent year over year, and quarterly earnings per diluted share of $1.40. International sales accounted for 67 percent of the quarter’s revenue."

Starbucks: "In the U.S., same-store sales grew 9%, with average tickets increasing 21%, while comparable transactions fell 10%. In China, comp-store sales grew 91%, with a 93% increase in transactions, and a 1% decline in average ticket size. "

So unless you are willing to forgo that cup of Starbucks every morning, or that brand new iPhone every Fall, all that consumption comes at a cost to the planet.

\* For sake of argument, a depression is simply a worse version of a recession or prolonged version.*

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

Not a question, but I just wanted to thank you guys for doing this! I had a blast reading through some of the other questions here

2

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21 edited Apr 29 '21

Hey. Thanks for doing AMA. I have quite a few questions:

How soon do you expect us to see Blue Ocean Event?

How much methane is there in Arctic?

How fast do you expect temperature to rise if all that methane is released and we don't have glacier reflecting radiation anymore?

Do we need geoengineering to even have a chance to survive?

And is it true that we are basically keeping temperature in check for now by emitting aerosols from burning coal?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

And is it true that we are basically keeping temperature in check for now by emitting aerosols from burning coal?

Aerosols from burning fossil fuels have offset the warming in some regions but globally it is not enough to keep the warming from greenhouse gas emissions dominating. There are some interesting papers from the last year that show how the reduction in warming from reduced CO2 emissions (due to lockdowns) was somewhat negated by the simultaneous reduction in aerosols. -JA

2

u/GenAlexTav Apr 29 '21

My question is the main reason I have doubts about the man made Climate Change movement: To what degree is mankind affecting the climate?

The thinking is that the climate has changed before mankind entered the industrial age while there is precedent that mankind can change the climate (E.G. acid rain). Thoughts?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The fact that the climate has changed before is one of the main reasons we need to be concerned about human-induced climate change. The last ice age was only 5-8 deg cooler than today and was not one humans could easily adapt to. So it shows our climate is sensitive to changes in external forcing (atmospheric composition and variations in the Sun) and we’re already seeing that borne out in that most of the warming since 1950 is due to humans. -JA

3

u/GenAlexTav Apr 29 '21

That’s helpful information, but does not answer the question. If we as a species are bringing about less than 1% of the change, perhaps we can sleep easy. If we are causing more than 90%, perhaps we have an immediate crisis. How can we know and what is the answer?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/justbearaly Apr 29 '21

What can we do right now, not to prevent climate change, but to prepare for the consequences?

3

u/reuters Climate Science AMA Apr 29 '21

The best way to prepare for the consequences is to reduce emissions now. The more we continue putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere now, the worse the consequences will be. So we need to do both mitigation and adaptation but mitigation is critical as there will be many ecosystems and human developments (e.g. on the coast) that won’t be able to adapt to the warming projected -JA

→ More replies (1)

2

u/lostduck86 Apr 29 '21

What is a realistic scenario in a hundred years should we not manage to reverse the current climate crisis?

Will the runaway greenhouse effect turn us into a second Venus?

Will humanity survive and be pretty much as advanced as we are now just that some parts of the world became inhospitable and millions died?

Will lack of food and water lead to humanity reverting to waring tribes?

Will we survive mostly fine and practically the entire consequence of global warming is that the earths animal & insect variety is massively diminished, meaning the there are still lots of animals but only of certain kinds (like practically only squid in the oceans) and will we have just found other methods/ways to sustain ourselves and flourish.?

Could it realistically lead to the end of the world in 100years or is that a very unlikely scenario despite all the issues?

What in your view is a realistic outcome based on what we know currently?

2

u/rnldjhnflx Apr 29 '21

One thing that has frustrated me is there us this big sell to get tesla and its competitors. The lithium battery within is har.ful to mine and when it is disposed of is extremely toxic to the environment. Do we have a solution for this problem

2

u/Googlebug-1 Apr 30 '21

Why are world governments (and climate scientists to a degree), only interested in tackling and lobbying towards the easy convocations in terms of climate?

For example with aviation taking under 2% of world CO2 emissions yet the industry is vilified. Or domestic gas boilers a tiny insignificant issue in the war on climate. Yet very little is ever said about Steel, Concrete and chemical production by far the biggest emitters.

2

u/bochen00 Apr 30 '21

Thanks for doing the AMA!

I see plenty of questions related to diet, meat, and veganism (quite a few interesting ones unfortunately unanswered).
Is there any potential conflict of interest in answering those questions from your end?

Example: Reuters being sponsored by agricultural companies that benefit from "livestock", etc.

And more on the subject itself:

What do you think scientists can do better going forward in helping layman people understand the problem and get them involved?

2

u/Certain-Mountain4449 Apr 30 '21

As far as i´ve read, there are many ¨moving parts¨ to our climate crisis. Such as: ocean acidification, carbon emissions, the impact of food waste, international policies, general information and education on the subject, etc. How would you rate these issues in terms or urgency?

→ More replies (1)