Global Warming at 3 °C by 2050? What's Behind the New German Climate Warning

gnabgib

Original article: (14 points, 4 hours ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48913407

Madmallard

Is the major issue here that 3 degrees Celsius is like an average so all the hot tropics places just become uninhabitable whereas temperature rises are more moderated in higher latitudes? Also how much faster and higher will that number go with all the data centers? Can't imagine it not just getting worse.

cebert

If we don’t do something about this, I fear future generations will not view us in a positive light.

leonidasv

This is the most important part most people don't get: > And what would 3 °C mean for Germany? > FB: In summer, meteorological records could reach up to 50 °C. Three degrees of global warming does not mean hot days will just be 3 or 4 degrees hotter. It could mean up to 10 degrees hotter. We would also face much longer droughts. 3°C warming implies summer days can get 10°C hotter. This is nightmare scenario.

puskavi

EU has done its part, but all efforts are just drop in the ocean. Also, can these studies be trusted? EU basically throws money anything "green" (except buying forests and making them protected), so naturally these studies benefit from it.

yanhangyhy

lets plant more trees!

musha68k

UK official body of actuaries basically says we are on trajectory of "Extreme" rating: > 3°C or more by 2050. Multiple climate tipping points triggered, tipping cascade. > over 4 billion deaths If so, big shifts would already be imminently felt within next 5-10 years. Remember that there would basically be no place to hide from these direct or knock-on effects. Not for any self sufficient "prepper with a Mac Studio" nor for any billionaire with their "Galapagos" private island data center come habitat or any other short-sighted fantasy escape scenarios. https://actuaries.org.uk/media/ni4erlna/planetary-solvency.p... Edit: "on trajectory" to "Extreme" was too strong; it’s the report’s worst case band and not a forecast. What they’re basically saying is that "the chance of this happening is way too high".

et-al

Unfortunately Germany phased out nuclear power, but continues to burn coal.

OutOfHere

If we coat and paint the entire human occupied land surface in white nano-diversely-sized barium sulfate paint, it will reflect the excess heat into space. Most people don't understand that this works or how it works, but science does. We will still have to lower our CO2 and emissions but we will get a break from warming.

pbgcp2026

Oil refineries, tankers burn in the open. Nuclear stations may get blown by drones / ballistic rockets any moment. Dead dolphins are all over Black sea. And yet ... let's put a price on carbon!

teravor

I wouldn't be too worried about it this century at least. if things look like they are going to get bad we will resort to geoengineering, and once we get a taste for it we will further optimize global temperatures to our liking. perversely, global warming earlier than expected is a good thing [for us] as it will wipe away all meaningful opposition to geoengineering. note how according to them having 50C days is a likely outcome. no one will tolerate this. sending the sulfur planes is assured at that point. you wouldn't even need to try and convince people with harvest yields.

exabrial

Germany just shut down several perfectly fine nuclear reactors and has some of the dirtiest electricity generation in the entire world They need to look inward before pointing outward.

xyzelement

This article sprinkles the word "risk" which people interpret as "bad things are coming" but actually means "there's some probability of the bad thing happening." The probability is not quantified so it's impossible to react to. Over-protecting from a risk is as bad and under-protecting. For example - something bad can happen to you any time you leave your house. However if you "protect" against that the risk by never leaving the house you are almost certainly worse off. In case of climate the "thing to do" to protect from the risk is to minimize the economic activity that has improved life for everyone. Stopping that has an immediate "cost" which looks large compared to the unquantified risk it allegedly mitigates.