As we are at or nearing +1.5C now, with global emissions at an all time high [ perhaps peaking soon ] theres a good chance we are headed toward +2.6C by ~2060.
Keep in mind the CO2 stays up there for a long time, centuries, so when we get to net-zero its max-CO2 and therefore max-heat.
The graphs I see all have ridiculous ranges, either +1.5C hopium or +6C hellscape - whereas +2.6C within 20 to 30 years seems a most likely [and unpleasant] scenario.
Carbon capture is completely infeasible. It's already too late anyway, our civilization is pretty much doomed barring some miracle.
You basically need to suck the entire atmosphere through a factory, it's not about tech it's just a big fan. And then of course you need something to process all that air as fast as it comes in.
The world produces over 38 billion tons of CO2 a year. Assuming they reach their target performance, we would need 38bn/500k=76,000 of these facilities just to offset our current emissions.
The number of "power generating facilities" in the entire world, for reference, is about 30,000. So we would need more than twice as many capture plants as we currently have power plants. And of course they all need power, ways to actually get rid of the carbon they're collecting, chemicals etc.
So sure, if you want to live in a dream world where we magically just invent a 1000x better way to do it it's totally feasible. And while we're at it I'm sure we'll just make a 1000x more efficient combustion engine and a 1000x more effective dynamo and 1000x more effective ways to grow food and 1000x more effective solar panels, desalination etc. The next 50 years will totally revolutionize all these technologies we've already close to perfected, surely.
In case it wasn't clear that's sarcasm. Nobody is expecting to significantly improve any of these things because we are already closing in on hard physical limits that can't just be technologied away. A 1.2x improvement in any of them would be staggering, and even that is unrealistic for most if not all of the random technologies i mentioned.
Furthermore, 50 years is way too late. In 50 years we will be at like +3-4C or beyond. If things haven't already completely gone to shit at that point I can guarantee you there will be chaos and much more to come. They will have more pressing concerns than building 70,000 carbon capture facilities.
I'm not having kids, I hope my corner of the world stays relatively stable until I'm gone and I pity the people who have to live beyond that.
I believe this is an important point to make because it looks to me like the primary effect (and maybe also intended effect?) of carbon capture efforts is to encourage complacency. "Don't worry about these emissions, we'll just slurp the CO2 back up later and fix everything".
It is orders of magnitude harder to remove the CO2 that it is to emit it. Relying on "future technology" to save us is a prayer not a plan.
What if there is no solution? Do you understand that we are talking about the very imminent end of the world? Literally a complete collapse of human civilization, likely starting within this century. Maybe within our lifetimes.
"Let's hope someone finds a solution" is not enough. We have the solution, it is to stop emitting billions of tons of greenhouse gases every year. We just aren't doing it. So yeah, I find it just a little frustrating when people deny the problem, deny the severity of it, or claim that magic future technology will fix it. This is why we are in this position in the first place, because people do not take it seriously.
> there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible … the projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur.
Bonus: https://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichungen/publikationen/...
> the climate change mitigation goals which have been pledged are far too low (ambition gap), and the measures which are currently being implemented and planned are not sufficient to achieve even these inadequate goals (realisation gap). This has far-reaching consequences: There is a strong probability that the ambition gap will lead to a temperature rise of 2 to 5 degrees Centigrade compared to pre-industrial temperatures by 2100, the realisation gap to a further rise of several degrees Centigrade.[1,2,VI] There is a danger that the mean temperature will already have risen by 3 degrees Centigrade by 2050
That's very different from your certainty that our civilization will end. Even just reading through their list of impacts at +4C, it's horrific, but pretty clearly not civilization-ending.
IMO, this kind of hyperbole does a lot of damage to your cause. The reality is bad enough, you don't need to make things up. People eventually stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
I'm not "crying wolf". You, like most people just don't want to hear it. That's why most (especially the "officially accepted") climate models are unrealistically optimistic even with their worst case scenarios. Because people who tell the truth are considered alarmist and people who sugar coat it are ignored.
Just to be clear, and because some people inexplicably seem to consider this worth even talking about, I'm not saying there won't be any humans anywhere. That might happen but there might also be some habitable places left at least for a while, maybe for a long time. Nobody knows exactly what's going to happen. If 80% of the global population were to perish I would consider this "prophecy" fulfilled. It's not important to me whether some people survive somewhere because the point is I don't want to live through (or, overwhelmingly more likely, die during) the process leading up to that and I don't want to put a new person into the world who will have to live through that. That's where my concern ends, I don't care what happens after the world as we know it is gone.
Humans do inhumane things to each other during hard times, and I guarantee you, regardless of how you define words like adaptation and civilization, there's extremely hard times coming.
To wit: Russian cowboys learn to wrangle a brand new beef industry - https://whyy.org/segments/russian-cowboys-learn-to-wrangle-a...
Getting an early start on skill sets before Siberia replaces the American cattle plains.
I understand that you don’t think you’re being alarmist, of course. But why would I think some random internet commenter is more credible with their predictions that are much worse than the IPCC and other scientific consensus?
Sometimes shit just doesn't happen. To prime your brain for the empathy required, imagine the sensation that you feel when you jump off a bridge or building and realize that you've made a huge mistake, and you'd actually like to live a bit longer, but now there's no turning back and it is over for you.
Now imagine that same sensation, but apply it to the lives of all the less privileged people that will die due to first-order (wet bulb, drought) and second-order (war, famine) effects of climate change. But maybe we're not screwed. Maybe you actually survive the fall because a benevolent sea lion decides to keep you afloat after you impact the water and break all of your bones too severely to tread water.
Still fucked up to just jump anyway, especially if it's not your life that you're gambling with (thanks Baby Boomers, esp. oil baron Baby Boomers).