Four alarming charts that show just how extreme the climate is(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Four alarming charts that show just how extreme the climate is
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/17/world/four-climate-charts-extreme-weather-heat-oceans/index.html
73 comments
I’m not a skeptic but I’m not sure I would pick these for the most alarming charts. Crossing 1.5 is arbitrary. The sea surface spike looks less ominous with the higher 2016 anomaly in the same chart. Arctic sea ice hasn’t hit a new low for 11 years.
For 2023 I would go with Antarctic sea ice, Canadian wildfires, Great Lake snow cover, and record-breaking heat waves…
For 2023 I would go with Antarctic sea ice, Canadian wildfires, Great Lake snow cover, and record-breaking heat waves…
Some pretty clever friends of mine are firmly on the "fake news" fence with regards to climate change (and some other similar issues).
I've given up on changing their minds. No matter how deep I analyze their data and point out the flaws, they won't budge an inch.
Probably even total global destruction would not make them reconsider. It's become tribal at this point.
I've given up on changing their minds. No matter how deep I analyze their data and point out the flaws, they won't budge an inch.
Probably even total global destruction would not make them reconsider. It's become tribal at this point.
Clever might be the right word here. As we programmers know being clever sometimes leads to really stupid solutions.
As someone who read quite some of the reports and also occasionally into underlying studies I have to say that this is unarguable happening. The amount of research that went into this topic is so deep and so wide that arguing against it is basically the equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your fingers into your ears and going "Lalalala".
Being unable to do comprehensive reading and understanding basic physical processes is not a good starting points in 2023.
As someone who read quite some of the reports and also occasionally into underlying studies I have to say that this is unarguable happening. The amount of research that went into this topic is so deep and so wide that arguing against it is basically the equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your fingers into your ears and going "Lalalala".
Being unable to do comprehensive reading and understanding basic physical processes is not a good starting points in 2023.
I feel I'm in an unusual position because I have a BSME degree. Which means I'm familiar enough with basics that I can do a very rough analysis. And when I do that what I see I makes me really nervous. And yet I know I simply can't do anything more than that because it's way to complex. Any time that happens I fall back in what technical people in the field say. And those people are terrified. The flip side is anyone not a technical practitioner I discount what they say out of hand because I know they have no ability to discern anything.
It has been happening inarguably for some time now, we need to accept that we won’t convince the last group and switch over to figuring out what we can do about it.
Because I am not seeing much about that, certainly not from the activists.
Because I am not seeing much about that, certainly not from the activists.
Meanwhile in Europe the term "Eco-terrorism" changed the meaning, from the entity which poisons or destroys the ecology to the youngsters which are gluing themselves to the art and streets in protests of politicians doing nothing. In UK they have even made a TV series about it ...
Here is the answer to Fermi paradox "Where is everyone?", - they have not passed the great filter as we probably will not pass it either ...
Here is the answer to Fermi paradox "Where is everyone?", - they have not passed the great filter as we probably will not pass it either ...
Lots of research[1] has been done about why changing people's minds is hard, e.g:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-risky-is-it-real...
Or a more complicated one where studies where done: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont...
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=why+arguing+won%27t+change+people%...
Or a more complicated one where studies where done: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont...
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=why+arguing+won%27t+change+people%...
I feel like there's a really unfortunate effect where we see someone else's tribal beliefs when they say stuff that's unhinged from our collective available understanding, like blanket calling all climate change information "fake news", and it results in us strengthening our own beliefs because we know this person with the opposite belief has totally garbage methodology on the topic.
But it's not actually evidence for our beliefs, and we don't notice how it strengthens our own tribal beliefs, and so we don't notice that it's also unhinged to causally talk about "global total destruction" in this context, and only validated by tribal effects. And then our "fake news" friends notice our garbage methodology and take it as evidence for the correctness of their beliefs.
But it's not actually evidence for our beliefs, and we don't notice how it strengthens our own tribal beliefs, and so we don't notice that it's also unhinged to causally talk about "global total destruction" in this context, and only validated by tribal effects. And then our "fake news" friends notice our garbage methodology and take it as evidence for the correctness of their beliefs.
In an effort to find coming ground, I’ve found it’s better to argue the idea that humans should do everything we can to control climate.
Most people I know who reject the evidence of climate change seem to be into consuming and building lots of stuff, so this angle seems to appeal to that mindset.
It makes me think—maybe it’s a complete waste of time to try to “convince the other side” or “change their minds”. What if instead we agree on an outcome, like complete and total control over the earths climate? Would that help getting folks to run in the same direction?
If you think about it; the logical conclusion of humanity in our solar system is building a Dyson sphere around the sun and controlling climate for a huge population.
Most people I know who reject the evidence of climate change seem to be into consuming and building lots of stuff, so this angle seems to appeal to that mindset.
It makes me think—maybe it’s a complete waste of time to try to “convince the other side” or “change their minds”. What if instead we agree on an outcome, like complete and total control over the earths climate? Would that help getting folks to run in the same direction?
If you think about it; the logical conclusion of humanity in our solar system is building a Dyson sphere around the sun and controlling climate for a huge population.
> I've given up on changing their minds. No matter how deep I analyze their data and point out the flaws, they won't budge an inch.
I think it's easy to oversimplify their views. There's a pretty good scale of belief that some would call "denial" that isn't quite that.
1. Is it because they distrust the people talking about it? Have those people been wrong previously?
2. Is it because they distrust the proposed solutions to it? Do they feel there is an ulterior agenda behind those solutions? Or do they simply feel the proposed solutions are too expensive and unreasonable [1]?
3. Is it because they distrust the idea that humans cause climate change, not just nature?
4. Do they feel that it is an important issue; but believe it is a much lower priority issue than solving food, housing, education, safety, and other issues [2]?
And so forth. I think that very often; it is distrust of the people talking about it more than the idea. Remember that the World Economic Forum talks about climate change, but also bragged about how "You will own nothing, and be happy" which was the biggest self-own of the millennium. There aren't many people I run into who say "there is no climate change, period," but there are plenty who think that it's exaggerated, meant to benefit a political cause, meant to change social behavior to benefit somebody's agenda, etc. I can't say that is 100% unwarranted. Claiming "the world is going to end unless we do my solution X" is kind of like using vinegar to attract flies.
[1] And while I'm on the "unreasonable," it's vague but extremely hard to change and quantify. We could theoretically end child molestation if we had cameras in every room of every house; but that's not reasonable even if you could scientifically prove it to be effective. We could theoretically end illiteracy if we locked every child in a room with a book 24/7 until they learned to read, but that's not reasonable even if you could scientifically prove it to be effective. They could easily just feel that the climate change "solutions," regardless of the science, even if they are effective, just aren't at their level of reasonable. The reasons for that could be as different and varied as grains of sand on a seashore.
[2] California doesn't do themselves any favors when they scream about climate change while having severe homelessness, housing affordability, high taxation, and other issues that affect people personally on a day-to-day level. In my personal opinion, people would be much more sympathetic to solving climate change if they had their other ducks in a row. You can't convince people to think about the future if the present is a mess. You can't convince somebody to save 20% of their income for retirement when they've got $20K in credit card debt.
I think it's easy to oversimplify their views. There's a pretty good scale of belief that some would call "denial" that isn't quite that.
1. Is it because they distrust the people talking about it? Have those people been wrong previously?
2. Is it because they distrust the proposed solutions to it? Do they feel there is an ulterior agenda behind those solutions? Or do they simply feel the proposed solutions are too expensive and unreasonable [1]?
3. Is it because they distrust the idea that humans cause climate change, not just nature?
4. Do they feel that it is an important issue; but believe it is a much lower priority issue than solving food, housing, education, safety, and other issues [2]?
And so forth. I think that very often; it is distrust of the people talking about it more than the idea. Remember that the World Economic Forum talks about climate change, but also bragged about how "You will own nothing, and be happy" which was the biggest self-own of the millennium. There aren't many people I run into who say "there is no climate change, period," but there are plenty who think that it's exaggerated, meant to benefit a political cause, meant to change social behavior to benefit somebody's agenda, etc. I can't say that is 100% unwarranted. Claiming "the world is going to end unless we do my solution X" is kind of like using vinegar to attract flies.
[1] And while I'm on the "unreasonable," it's vague but extremely hard to change and quantify. We could theoretically end child molestation if we had cameras in every room of every house; but that's not reasonable even if you could scientifically prove it to be effective. We could theoretically end illiteracy if we locked every child in a room with a book 24/7 until they learned to read, but that's not reasonable even if you could scientifically prove it to be effective. They could easily just feel that the climate change "solutions," regardless of the science, even if they are effective, just aren't at their level of reasonable. The reasons for that could be as different and varied as grains of sand on a seashore.
[2] California doesn't do themselves any favors when they scream about climate change while having severe homelessness, housing affordability, high taxation, and other issues that affect people personally on a day-to-day level. In my personal opinion, people would be much more sympathetic to solving climate change if they had their other ducks in a row. You can't convince people to think about the future if the present is a mess. You can't convince somebody to save 20% of their income for retirement when they've got $20K in credit card debt.
As someone who has kept an eye on the numbers over the years, I am not sure what to add, the article sums it up sufficiently well to get the idea.
Can't say we didn't work hard for this.
Can't say we didn't work hard for this.
Extrapolations are inaccurate. It is a family of curves. There are some that tell us that by 2035 we might get +4°C (I hope that this will not happen). But even if we will reach +4°C by 2050, by some less pessimistic models then the environment for human existence will be doomed. Unfortunately at some point there will be exponential changes in methane increase in the atmosphere due to the melting of permafrost and methane-hydrates in the oceans. This was already a case once approximately 55 million years ago https://www.britannica.com/science/Paleocene-Eocene-Thermal-...
The recovery took like 120k-200k years. The ecosystems were replaced ...
Unfortunately there are a little chances that the Antarctica will be green again, because there probably no fertile soil left (scraped by the ice shield shifts and melting).
The idea of building an ark in NZ, Norway, Alaska, Greenland, or elsewhere will not help the humanity to survive.
The recovery took like 120k-200k years. The ecosystems were replaced ...
Unfortunately there are a little chances that the Antarctica will be green again, because there probably no fertile soil left (scraped by the ice shield shifts and melting).
The idea of building an ark in NZ, Norway, Alaska, Greenland, or elsewhere will not help the humanity to survive.
4 degrees by 2035? Where did you get these absurd extrapolations? Even the IPCC's consensus claims roughly 1.5 degrees by 2100.
If you want to personally contribute to a charity that tackles climate change in the most effective ways, I personally recommend: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/charities/founders-pledge-cl...
It's not much, but its way better that most lifestyle changes (avoiding transatlantic flights, recycling, vegetarianism), and personally helps me feel like I am part of the solution rather than the problem.
It's not much, but its way better that most lifestyle changes (avoiding transatlantic flights, recycling, vegetarianism), and personally helps me feel like I am part of the solution rather than the problem.
Any reason why the specific transatlantic flights? I mean, I can understand the need to avoid frivolous flights, but if there’s a justification to fly, I would guess the transatlantic one would be less wasteful than other kinda of flights that can be served by alternative means.
You realize atmospheric CO2 is driven by china? What do you think the charity is doing to stop that?
Yeah, and in China your chinese equivalent would argue using the same logic why they shouldn't stop.
Those paying the price will be the children of both nations.
Those paying the price will be the children of both nations.
>Yeah, and in China your chinese equivalent would argue using the same logic why they shouldn't stop.
Wrong. German (and US!) CO2 output is declining Chinese has risen drastically.
There is no equivalence here. China is doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, putting them on equal footing with the US/Europe is lying.
Wrong. German (and US!) CO2 output is declining Chinese has risen drastically.
There is no equivalence here. China is doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, putting them on equal footing with the US/Europe is lying.
>US CO2 is declining
Meanwhile, your equivalent in China is pointing that US CO2 emissions per capita are still way above China’s, cherry-picking the right metric to avoid any responsibility.
Also, as a European person myself don’t talk to me about Germany and Climate. Germany is a fucking joke and the worst example of a Climate friendly policy due to their rejection of nuclear. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Meanwhile, your equivalent in China is pointing that US CO2 emissions per capita are still way above China’s, cherry-picking the right metric to avoid any responsibility.
Also, as a European person myself don’t talk to me about Germany and Climate. Germany is a fucking joke and the worst example of a Climate friendly policy due to their rejection of nuclear. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
>Germany is a fucking joke and the worst example of a Climate friendly policy due to their rejection of nuclear.
Couldn't agree more. Funnily enough the single most important reason Germany abandoned nuclear is because of the Green party, which promotes itself as the climate party. That they singlehandidly returned Germany to coal power (the actual policy was enacted by the CDU, but was 100% the result of decade long anti-nuclear activism by the Green party) does not seem to matter. Germany has now fully left nuclear power under a Green "Economy and Climate" minister, the sane alternative would have meant an enormous loss of face for that party.
If this does not tell you that there will never be a politcal solution to the problem I don't know what to say.
Couldn't agree more. Funnily enough the single most important reason Germany abandoned nuclear is because of the Green party, which promotes itself as the climate party. That they singlehandidly returned Germany to coal power (the actual policy was enacted by the CDU, but was 100% the result of decade long anti-nuclear activism by the Green party) does not seem to matter. Germany has now fully left nuclear power under a Green "Economy and Climate" minister, the sane alternative would have meant an enormous loss of face for that party.
If this does not tell you that there will never be a politcal solution to the problem I don't know what to say.
> That they singlehandidly returned Germany to coal power (the actual policy was enacted by the CDU, but was 100% the result of decade long anti-nuclear activism by the Green party) does not seem to matter.
Man, isn't it handy that the opposition party is at fault for what the party in power does? Those evil Greens just forced the CDUs hand, they had no choice (except for their actual power in the government, but why count that?).
Man, isn't it handy that the opposition party is at fault for what the party in power does? Those evil Greens just forced the CDUs hand, they had no choice (except for their actual power in the government, but why count that?).
> Wrong. German (and US!) CO2 output is declining Chinese has risen drastically.
Per head? China has roughly 9 tons per capita and the US has 14-15 tons per capita.
So even if the US cut their emissions by a third China would still be more resourceful there. We have to do more to reduce our carbon footprint because we have such a huge footprint.
If we forget all about politics for a moment and look at the problem in an abstract fashion: Isn't it resonable that the worst offenders have to cut their emissions to a level that matches the upcoming countries before we can demand something from others?
Per head? China has roughly 9 tons per capita and the US has 14-15 tons per capita.
So even if the US cut their emissions by a third China would still be more resourceful there. We have to do more to reduce our carbon footprint because we have such a huge footprint.
If we forget all about politics for a moment and look at the problem in an abstract fashion: Isn't it resonable that the worst offenders have to cut their emissions to a level that matches the upcoming countries before we can demand something from others?
If climate chage is threatining all life on earth it should be a priority that all countries reduce their CO2 output. Or at tge very least that they do not drastically increase their output evefy year, as China does.
"You can pump as much CO2 in the atnosphere until we reach per capita parity, then you must reduce it as well" is an absurdist stance to take. Nobody who takes climate change seriously can believe that.
"You can pump as much CO2 in the atnosphere until we reach per capita parity, then you must reduce it as well" is an absurdist stance to take. Nobody who takes climate change seriously can believe that.
Yeah, but this is a game theoretical problem. Let's assume this: the rich per capita emitters say we should look just at absolute number (a metric that by pure coincidence makes them look better) and the worst absolute emitters say we should look only at per capita emissions (a metric which coincidentally makes them look better).
The issue there is that both are right in a certain way. We need to get the absolute emissions down, but to do so fairly the worst emitters per capita should commit to the biggest savings.
Now if both stiffly insist on their position we end up worse off in the long term than if one just gave in.
The issue there is that both are right in a certain way. We need to get the absolute emissions down, but to do so fairly the worst emitters per capita should commit to the biggest savings.
Now if both stiffly insist on their position we end up worse off in the long term than if one just gave in.
It is horrible that country like USA doesn't aim at extremely fast pace to get it's emissions to same level than some other countries. Let's say Congo. They could easily force these changes to their population, but no...
Yes. This is really simple, I am sure that the population will be readily convinced to drastically reduce their living standards. You just need some dictatorial power, easily done.
And before it was driven by other countries. And they have not done enough to cut their emission to say one tenth to repay the planet.
I'm not an expert bn this field, but I'm pretty sure that's a "yikes".
Wow, you can tell this site has gained alot of traction since Reddit has been having issues. Sad to see zero intellectual discussion and pursuit of curiosity here.
There's three big issues here.
A. It's arguable the actual impact humans have on climate change.
B. Even if A is true, then we stil have geopolitics since the technology isn't ready or mature enough for mass adoption, and when major polluters are massive ships and factories, it doesn't matter what you personally do. Not only that, but if on a nation level you do impliment these policies, you're giving up your own freedoms to another country like China who won't and WILL overtake you by having immense economic efficiencies since they use oil and just pollute. Then you end up in the same situation you were anyways, but now under a communist dictatorship where you can't complain, with no countries like Nato or anyone else to save you. Very dystopian.
C. Even if we do hit the end times with climate change, all the science points towards Geoseeding as being a solution way before that.
Sad to see it's just circle jerking of fake intellectuals going "YA BRO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS DUMB, UNEDUCATED" or "Being unable to do comprehensive reading and understanding basic physical processes is not a good starting points in 2023." - atoav , or "I've basically given up on anything drastic happening until the dipshit conservatives in the US stop their moronic crusade on this topic. I give my money monthly to a carbon sequestration company and mostly use my bike and mass transit, but offsets for flights." - Sporkland, truly the greatest sanitation engineers of our time.
There's three big issues here.
A. It's arguable the actual impact humans have on climate change.
B. Even if A is true, then we stil have geopolitics since the technology isn't ready or mature enough for mass adoption, and when major polluters are massive ships and factories, it doesn't matter what you personally do. Not only that, but if on a nation level you do impliment these policies, you're giving up your own freedoms to another country like China who won't and WILL overtake you by having immense economic efficiencies since they use oil and just pollute. Then you end up in the same situation you were anyways, but now under a communist dictatorship where you can't complain, with no countries like Nato or anyone else to save you. Very dystopian.
C. Even if we do hit the end times with climate change, all the science points towards Geoseeding as being a solution way before that.
Sad to see it's just circle jerking of fake intellectuals going "YA BRO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS DUMB, UNEDUCATED" or "Being unable to do comprehensive reading and understanding basic physical processes is not a good starting points in 2023." - atoav , or "I've basically given up on anything drastic happening until the dipshit conservatives in the US stop their moronic crusade on this topic. I give my money monthly to a carbon sequestration company and mostly use my bike and mass transit, but offsets for flights." - Sporkland, truly the greatest sanitation engineers of our time.
(B) is an interesting take. Who is to say "the other" guy is not already polluting to their max. If one country lowers its emissions,it is what aboutism to then suggest it must be a zero sum game and that other countries would increase their pollution. (It doesn't really matter what China does, the world needs to lower emissions and one country not doing so is not reason to then do nothing. That same line of reasoning caused the US to lose the solar panel industry to china)
(A) arguments around this are pretty over. I think that is why so little time is spent on it now. The Anti-science & big oil crowd win so long as nothing happens. Reading a list like A, B, C certainly sounds like someone talking themselves out of getting shape (A) I can't get in shape,(B) even if I can, someone else will be in better shape, (C) by the time I need to worry about being in shape, there will be a technology that makes it easy for me anyways.
(A) arguments around this are pretty over. I think that is why so little time is spent on it now. The Anti-science & big oil crowd win so long as nothing happens. Reading a list like A, B, C certainly sounds like someone talking themselves out of getting shape (A) I can't get in shape,(B) even if I can, someone else will be in better shape, (C) by the time I need to worry about being in shape, there will be a technology that makes it easy for me anyways.
Obviously someone has learned a lot about communication in the Corona crisis, because in this climate thingy the communication continues exactly the same way:
* Presenting models, which allegedly can determine the coming weeks/months/year exactly in advance (I remember "Either you are vaccinated or dead until Christmas") and must never be questioned, because they are consensus in THE science (tm).
* One must fight misinformation and fake news (that is, everything that contradicts these models in terms of facts).
* THE science (tm) is only supplied by a handful of actors in the media.
Actually, every self-thinking person would have to be aware of this Wuhan virus origin theory disaster, which was first defamed as a conspiracy theory and has since been confirmed by the US intelligence services.
Any lessons learned?
And just as little as all unvaccinated people died before Christmas, just as little as the prophecies in the 80s that the children of today would no longer see trees and forests, just as little as all seals and polar bears are slaughtered and extinct, just as little arctic would be ice free 2022 - and the list could go on and on - just as little should one trust models of THE science (tm) that these accurately represent reality and should therefore be considered religious truth.
The basis of any science is critical discourse. Who defames the participants of this critical discourse from the beginning as idiots or being dumb having because of a different opinion, should rather consider whether (s)he speaks here of science or religious fanaticism.
P.S.: 2007 the "Polar View" project adjusted the original model predicting Arctic to be ice free 30 to 40 years to 15-20 years. So today. Oh no - it's still not ice free. But now WWF predicts that the Arctic is not going to be ice free in 30 years but already in 15 years. 16 years later - still predicting the same stuff over and over.
* Presenting models, which allegedly can determine the coming weeks/months/year exactly in advance (I remember "Either you are vaccinated or dead until Christmas") and must never be questioned, because they are consensus in THE science (tm).
* One must fight misinformation and fake news (that is, everything that contradicts these models in terms of facts).
* THE science (tm) is only supplied by a handful of actors in the media.
Actually, every self-thinking person would have to be aware of this Wuhan virus origin theory disaster, which was first defamed as a conspiracy theory and has since been confirmed by the US intelligence services.
Any lessons learned?
And just as little as all unvaccinated people died before Christmas, just as little as the prophecies in the 80s that the children of today would no longer see trees and forests, just as little as all seals and polar bears are slaughtered and extinct, just as little arctic would be ice free 2022 - and the list could go on and on - just as little should one trust models of THE science (tm) that these accurately represent reality and should therefore be considered religious truth.
The basis of any science is critical discourse. Who defames the participants of this critical discourse from the beginning as idiots or being dumb having because of a different opinion, should rather consider whether (s)he speaks here of science or religious fanaticism.
P.S.: 2007 the "Polar View" project adjusted the original model predicting Arctic to be ice free 30 to 40 years to 15-20 years. So today. Oh no - it's still not ice free. But now WWF predicts that the Arctic is not going to be ice free in 30 years but already in 15 years. 16 years later - still predicting the same stuff over and over.
“ Sad to see it's just circle jerking of fake intellectuals going "YA BRO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS DUMB, UNEDUCATED" or "Being unable to do comprehensive reading and understanding basic physical processes is not a good starting points in 2023." - atoav , or "I've basically given up on anything drastic happening until the dipshit conservatives in the US stop their moronic crusade on this topic. I give my money monthly to a carbon sequestration company and mostly use my bike and mass transit, but offsets for flights." - Sporkland, truly the greatest sanitation engineers of our time.”
You do understand that this paragraph paints you as exactly the same type of person you’re mocking, yes?
You do understand that this paragraph paints you as exactly the same type of person you’re mocking, yes?
Good job tackling any of my points. You win 5 morale highground updoots. You're on a tech site, which is aimed to support intellectual discussion, but I don't see you doing any of that. Must be difficult for you.
For all you know, I agree with your points. It’s the pointless pot-and-kettle that I’m noting. It wins you nothing.
Wait there were just 3 alarming charts in some article last week
sporkland(4)
egberts1(5)
All the charts started counting 40 years ago. In other words, they are extremely misleading.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-first-days-june-sur...
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-upl...
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-...
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/primary_mlo...