Climate tipping points are now imminent, scientists warn(dw.com)
dw.com
Climate tipping points are now imminent, scientists warn
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-tipping-points-are-now-imminent-scientists-warn/a-58665256
96 comments
My anxiety about global warming is more intense than ever lately. I feel like most people around me don't realize it. It's a lonely feeling. And I feel uncomfortable bringing it up and ruining others' mood. My fear is that it happens much faster than everyone think it is
You're not alone. As someone who lives in the PNW I dread fire season (summer) now because it means we could have days of smoke and dangerously high particulate levels - having your air full of smoke such that you can barely see across the street for days tends to awaken a primal fear. And there's a huge dead zone now forming off of our coast which is killing untold amounts of marine life (not to mention that marine life that died in last months heat dome event). We've trashed the place and most people don't seem to be even mildly concerned.
What's worse is that, well, just no one is willing to do anything at all about it. Nobody in society is willing to sacrifice anything to stop it. We're still going to drive cars to work, everything disposable is still going to be made of plastic, we're still going to burn coal to power our bitcoin miners, and we're still going to eat large quantities of meat at every meal.
Frankly, it's become very difficult to have anything but a fatalist view of the whole thing.
Frankly, it's become very difficult to have anything but a fatalist view of the whole thing.
Don't worry about things that aren't under your control. All you're going to do is have a mental breakdown. Focus on what you can control - which is your own carbon footprint. Work on ways to reduce it while living a reasonably "normal" life. Heck, you can even regularly report on it and be a celebrity greenie of sorts. Don't fret though - you simply can't control it.
It will happen much more quickly than people realize since the totality of what I’ve read seems to be “our models about it are too conservative”. The big question will be whether there’s a very significant impact to this in the western world. We’ll feel secondary effects and coastline habitability will shift, but I suspect the point where we see it directly in the west is when the entire world is in turmoil. Even still, there will be people here talking about illegal immigration rather than what causing that.
The flooding, drought, heatwaves and wildfires in the US and Europe are significant impacts on the western world. That's happening right now. There's no question at this point about whether Western and developed countries are going to be hit hard.
Those impacts can be dismissed or chalked up to just a mild worsening of existing trends. Additionally, these issues are generally weathered relatively well by the impacted communities and insurance helps them rebuild/relocate.
That is a very different experience from going through something like the Arab spring or the Syrian civil war if they were indeed the result of fault lines cracking under the weight of global warming.
The difference is in one model you live through a traumatic experience but society is largely there to help you through and the broader society doesn’t really share your pain. In the other model society falls apart.
That is a very different experience from going through something like the Arab spring or the Syrian civil war if they were indeed the result of fault lines cracking under the weight of global warming.
The difference is in one model you live through a traumatic experience but society is largely there to help you through and the broader society doesn’t really share your pain. In the other model society falls apart.
> Those impacts can be dismissed or chalked up to just a mild worsening of existing trends. Additionally, these issues are generally weathered relatively well by the impacted communities and insurance helps them rebuild/relocate.
And how many times per decade (per year ?) can it be weathered ?
We got lucky in Western Europe with the recent flood. What when it happens in December or January next time ?
And how many times per decade (per year ?) can it be weathered ?
We got lucky in Western Europe with the recent flood. What when it happens in December or January next time ?
I bring it up anyway - COVID or climate disaster. I mention it in work meetings or with friends/family.
It's a fact of life.
I don't dwell on it - simply note it, then move on with the rest of the discussion. Ignoring the realities you're facing (bad air, threat of evacuation, etc) simply to avoid discomfort seems worse to me.
It's a fact of life.
I don't dwell on it - simply note it, then move on with the rest of the discussion. Ignoring the realities you're facing (bad air, threat of evacuation, etc) simply to avoid discomfort seems worse to me.
The irony is, the avoidance of the problem is a causative factor of the problem. Everyone here, including me, contributes to global warming and we "avoid" the problem by continuing to contribute.
This isn't an "everyone does it" problem though. This is a lack of regulation and government problem.
It's like blaming plastic consumption on consumers. Consumers aren't the problem, corporations are. Coke doesn't HAVE to use plastic bottles, they can use cans for everything. Yet they are one of the 1 producers of plastic waste.
Carbon production is much the same. The vast amount of it comes down to corporate production of carbon that is completely out of the average persons hands to change. I can't control how a tomato gets shipped to my grocery store, and it's frankly unreasonable to think I could locally grow all my goods. I can't change the fact that my work forces in-office work.
The fact is, burning fossil fuels is cheap, and if we want that to stop then the quickest and surest way is to tax it. Once it becomes more expensive to burn fossils you can bet corporations and individuals will bend over backwards to avoid it.
The climate problem is a failure of government and lack of regulation problem, not an individual problem.
It's like blaming plastic consumption on consumers. Consumers aren't the problem, corporations are. Coke doesn't HAVE to use plastic bottles, they can use cans for everything. Yet they are one of the 1 producers of plastic waste.
Carbon production is much the same. The vast amount of it comes down to corporate production of carbon that is completely out of the average persons hands to change. I can't control how a tomato gets shipped to my grocery store, and it's frankly unreasonable to think I could locally grow all my goods. I can't change the fact that my work forces in-office work.
The fact is, burning fossil fuels is cheap, and if we want that to stop then the quickest and surest way is to tax it. Once it becomes more expensive to burn fossils you can bet corporations and individuals will bend over backwards to avoid it.
The climate problem is a failure of government and lack of regulation problem, not an individual problem.
The individual does, ostensibly, have voting power and economic decision making capability.
I have decided to buy no pure-ICE going forward.
I am a single-issue climate voter.
Enough people making these choices can precipitate change. Why is Tesla selling every vehicle it can make and have such a high stock valuation?
I have decided to buy no pure-ICE going forward.
I am a single-issue climate voter.
Enough people making these choices can precipitate change. Why is Tesla selling every vehicle it can make and have such a high stock valuation?
> The individual does, ostensibly, have voting power and economic decision making capability.
I'd say the voting power is the #1 thing individuals can do to affect change. The economic decisions are, frankly, only something that the well off can afford to do.
However, it must be understood that real impact needs regulation. It's not enough for all the well off to drive Teslas. It's not enough to install solar on your home. It's not enough to run your own home garden.
Does it have impact? Some. But we are talking about orders of magnitude problems. All the work you do gardening doesn't come close to addressing the amount of CO2 pushed out by the airline industry, cruise industry, or shipping industry.
The main thing you can do is vote for politicians that will go after climate change (or at a minimum, won't stand in the way of politicians that do).
This is an Amdahl's law problem.
I'd say the voting power is the #1 thing individuals can do to affect change. The economic decisions are, frankly, only something that the well off can afford to do.
However, it must be understood that real impact needs regulation. It's not enough for all the well off to drive Teslas. It's not enough to install solar on your home. It's not enough to run your own home garden.
Does it have impact? Some. But we are talking about orders of magnitude problems. All the work you do gardening doesn't come close to addressing the amount of CO2 pushed out by the airline industry, cruise industry, or shipping industry.
The main thing you can do is vote for politicians that will go after climate change (or at a minimum, won't stand in the way of politicians that do).
This is an Amdahl's law problem.
Partly agree with you. It's look like analogy with smoking in my country. Government put taxes into stick and cigarette and many people stop smoking because of insane prices by pack
> The fact is, burning fossil fuels is cheap
Subsidized, even.
Subsidized, even.
I literally told family members "I'm going to mention climate change in every conversation from here on out" and then brought it up, even if I just mention in passing or find a way to involve it in the conversation as a joke.
Five years later, and my parents are now single-issue climate voters.
Five years later, and my parents are now single-issue climate voters.
This is how you do it. It's a fact of life, not some "theory". Not discussing it is the real problem.
I just started to do the same
My condolences to your parents and family.
I'm not trying to be rude, but, why are you worrying about it?
From a "the children are our future" perspective, sure, future generations will have a harder time. Poor and coastal communities will be displaced, there'll be economic hardships, and in general life is going to just be harder.
But it's not like we haven't faced hardships before. In fact, it's such a well-known problem that we probably have more solutions (both short-term and long-term) than for any other disaster we might face. Even in the worst case, it's manageable.
From a "the children are our future" perspective, sure, future generations will have a harder time. Poor and coastal communities will be displaced, there'll be economic hardships, and in general life is going to just be harder.
But it's not like we haven't faced hardships before. In fact, it's such a well-known problem that we probably have more solutions (both short-term and long-term) than for any other disaster we might face. Even in the worst case, it's manageable.
> From a "the children are our future" perspective, sure, future generations will have a harder time.
I very much dislike this perspective. Climate change is happening __now__. It is affecting us __now___. It is costing __us__ billions of dollars a year. Not future generations, __us__.
I very much dislike this perspective. Climate change is happening __now__. It is affecting us __now___. It is costing __us__ billions of dollars a year. Not future generations, __us__.
Not trying to bait or anything, just genuinely curious which disasters we've spent billions on as a result of climate change? I'm not talking about things like oil spills or results of corporate environmental neglect. I'm talking about natural disasters that are happening that can be directly tied to human-driven climate change.
For example — as far as I can tell, we have little evidence the forest fires in the PNW are directly impacted by climate change. When humans have been the direct cause, it's been things like cigarettes or fireworks starting fires that then spread to 100s of thousands of acres. That's not climate change as far as I can tell.
Take this article for example → https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/climate-change-disasters-cau... and this excerpt:
"The six costliest disasters of 2020 occurred in the U.S, the worst of which was Hurricane Laura. The storm caused $13 billion in damage after it devastated parts of Louisiana in August. The Atlantic hurricane season saw a record 30 named storms and accounted for $43 billion in losses, almost half of the total disaster loss in the U.S. last year, the report said."
What does this have to do with human-driven climate change? There's no source or data that shows the hurricanes are caused by humans or that humans are even contributing to the cause. This article from climate.gov talks about aerosols, but still, not great studies and not great data → https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/how-humans-...
I find it hard to argue these points with climate change deniers because the data doesn't appear to be all that great. So I'm very curious how others are able to have fact based conversations so people can actually start coming to the realization that we do have a strong impact on the climate.
For example — as far as I can tell, we have little evidence the forest fires in the PNW are directly impacted by climate change. When humans have been the direct cause, it's been things like cigarettes or fireworks starting fires that then spread to 100s of thousands of acres. That's not climate change as far as I can tell.
Take this article for example → https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/climate-change-disasters-cau... and this excerpt:
"The six costliest disasters of 2020 occurred in the U.S, the worst of which was Hurricane Laura. The storm caused $13 billion in damage after it devastated parts of Louisiana in August. The Atlantic hurricane season saw a record 30 named storms and accounted for $43 billion in losses, almost half of the total disaster loss in the U.S. last year, the report said."
What does this have to do with human-driven climate change? There's no source or data that shows the hurricanes are caused by humans or that humans are even contributing to the cause. This article from climate.gov talks about aerosols, but still, not great studies and not great data → https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/how-humans-...
I find it hard to argue these points with climate change deniers because the data doesn't appear to be all that great. So I'm very curious how others are able to have fact based conversations so people can actually start coming to the realization that we do have a strong impact on the climate.
> For example — as far as I can tell, we have little evidence the forest fires in the PNW are directly impacted by climate change. When humans have been the direct cause, it's been things like cigarettes or fireworks starting fires that then spread to 100s of thousands of acres. That's not climate change as far as I can tell.
There's a misunderstanding here, I think. Yes, there is a direct cause by someone lighting a fire and then that fire burning. But there's other variables here that are highly influenced by climate change. Let me give a small example: What happens when you throw a lit cigarette butt on a well watered (but currently dry) and maintained lawn? You should know that the answer is nothing. The cigarette butt goes out. But what happens if you do it on a dry lawn? Very different story. This is how climate change helps drive more and worse wildfires than the past. We can see that there are larger number of acres burned per year[0]. But we can't look at that alone, let's look a precipitation trends in the PNW[1]. It's kinda a bold claim to not see the connection when we're going through a literal heat wave (it hasn't even been a month since the PNW set several heat records. My city hit 3 in one weekend). We can see that by year CA fires are becoming more frequent and more acres are burned[2]. Here's what happens. When there's a drought lots of plants die. Then there are flash rains. Lots of new growth that is able to capitalize on the rich soil from fertilization due to ash (ash is a great fertilizer). Heat then dries out all these low growth plants that are unable to sustain temperature swings like their more long lived brethren. Lots of dry shrubbery becomes lots of tinder. Now enter some idiot with a cigarette driving down the highway. Is that idiot to blame? Yes. Are they the only sole cause to the event that unfolds? Clearly not.
> There's no source or data that shows the hurricanes are caused by humans or that humans are even contributing to the cause.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. There is a clear positive trend between the number of hurricanes and tropical storms over the last hundred years[3], you can see the same thing with tornadoes. I'm not sure why you think this isn't related to climate change. Hurricanes are so prevalent in the Alantic Basin because that is where you get mixing of warm and cold air (warm air coming from the east from Africa and cold air coming from the north). Add more warm and more cold and you got more powerful hurricanes (you can see that in the trend too. Part of what that means is more storms upgraded to hurricanes and major hurricanes).
> I find it hard to argue these points with climate change deniers because the data doesn't appear to be all that great.
This is where I'm confused and do actually feel like I'm being baited. There's tons of data. You can find more than a dozen papers going into each of these topics I've mentioned all telling similar stories (and a few dozen more effects that couple with these). The problem here isn't that there isn't data, the problem is refusing to look at it. The problem is refusing to look at causal chains (like in our fire example). Even the Pentagon is writing reports[5] about how climate change is exacerbating issues (also, this is far from the first report that they wrote). More fires, more harsh storms, lower crop yields, decreasing access to water, desalination of ocean water, decrease in coral production, melting ice caps, etc. And here's the kicker. All these things can be linked to CO2eq in the atmosphere[6]. All these things are related. They all influence one another and there's a feedback loop because the coupled nature.
The facts and data are there. The question is if you will look at it. Are you going to listen to some person on the news or on the internet (including me) or are you going to seek out climate researchers and see what they say? Go listen to the experts. See why they are all terrified. We're far beyond where it is acceptable to have the conversation about the existence of something we've known about since the early 1980's. It isn't just the kitchen stove that is on fire. The whole house is ablaze. We can feel the heat and see the flames. Why are we still talking about if the fire exists? For the last ten years I hear every day people (including climate deniers) constantly saying "Boy, it's a hot summer this year." And we have the data to show that it's not just their gut feelings. I'm not being metaphorical when I say that people feel the heat.
[0] https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/09/23/us/fires-worst-ye... (paywalled: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/24/climate/fires...)
[1] https://www.forest2market.com/blog/2020-precipitation-trends...
[2] https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2020/4285/Fig1.png
[3] https://i.imgur.com/ax5CNnh.png (I sourced the data from NOAA)
[4] https://www.ventusky.com
[5] https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/se...
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
There's a misunderstanding here, I think. Yes, there is a direct cause by someone lighting a fire and then that fire burning. But there's other variables here that are highly influenced by climate change. Let me give a small example: What happens when you throw a lit cigarette butt on a well watered (but currently dry) and maintained lawn? You should know that the answer is nothing. The cigarette butt goes out. But what happens if you do it on a dry lawn? Very different story. This is how climate change helps drive more and worse wildfires than the past. We can see that there are larger number of acres burned per year[0]. But we can't look at that alone, let's look a precipitation trends in the PNW[1]. It's kinda a bold claim to not see the connection when we're going through a literal heat wave (it hasn't even been a month since the PNW set several heat records. My city hit 3 in one weekend). We can see that by year CA fires are becoming more frequent and more acres are burned[2]. Here's what happens. When there's a drought lots of plants die. Then there are flash rains. Lots of new growth that is able to capitalize on the rich soil from fertilization due to ash (ash is a great fertilizer). Heat then dries out all these low growth plants that are unable to sustain temperature swings like their more long lived brethren. Lots of dry shrubbery becomes lots of tinder. Now enter some idiot with a cigarette driving down the highway. Is that idiot to blame? Yes. Are they the only sole cause to the event that unfolds? Clearly not.
> There's no source or data that shows the hurricanes are caused by humans or that humans are even contributing to the cause.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. There is a clear positive trend between the number of hurricanes and tropical storms over the last hundred years[3], you can see the same thing with tornadoes. I'm not sure why you think this isn't related to climate change. Hurricanes are so prevalent in the Alantic Basin because that is where you get mixing of warm and cold air (warm air coming from the east from Africa and cold air coming from the north). Add more warm and more cold and you got more powerful hurricanes (you can see that in the trend too. Part of what that means is more storms upgraded to hurricanes and major hurricanes).
> I find it hard to argue these points with climate change deniers because the data doesn't appear to be all that great.
This is where I'm confused and do actually feel like I'm being baited. There's tons of data. You can find more than a dozen papers going into each of these topics I've mentioned all telling similar stories (and a few dozen more effects that couple with these). The problem here isn't that there isn't data, the problem is refusing to look at it. The problem is refusing to look at causal chains (like in our fire example). Even the Pentagon is writing reports[5] about how climate change is exacerbating issues (also, this is far from the first report that they wrote). More fires, more harsh storms, lower crop yields, decreasing access to water, desalination of ocean water, decrease in coral production, melting ice caps, etc. And here's the kicker. All these things can be linked to CO2eq in the atmosphere[6]. All these things are related. They all influence one another and there's a feedback loop because the coupled nature.
The facts and data are there. The question is if you will look at it. Are you going to listen to some person on the news or on the internet (including me) or are you going to seek out climate researchers and see what they say? Go listen to the experts. See why they are all terrified. We're far beyond where it is acceptable to have the conversation about the existence of something we've known about since the early 1980's. It isn't just the kitchen stove that is on fire. The whole house is ablaze. We can feel the heat and see the flames. Why are we still talking about if the fire exists? For the last ten years I hear every day people (including climate deniers) constantly saying "Boy, it's a hot summer this year." And we have the data to show that it's not just their gut feelings. I'm not being metaphorical when I say that people feel the heat.
[0] https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/09/23/us/fires-worst-ye... (paywalled: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/24/climate/fires...)
[1] https://www.forest2market.com/blog/2020-precipitation-trends...
[2] https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2020/4285/Fig1.png
[3] https://i.imgur.com/ax5CNnh.png (I sourced the data from NOAA)
[4] https://www.ventusky.com
[5] https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/se...
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
I'm sure you're right! But there's always bad things happening. We have anxiety because we want something to be different. But the thing doesn't become different whether we have anxiety or not.
If I bite my nails, or hop up and down yelling, or stand still peacefully, the problem and the solutions are the same.
If I bite my nails, or hop up and down yelling, or stand still peacefully, the problem and the solutions are the same.
But what you said before was different. Now you're saying "temper your response, focus on solutions" but before you said "don't worry about it, that's the future's problem." These are two very different statement.
Because we don't have solutions. The closer and closer we get to the edge the more and more the realization is that nobody in any government has any sort of contingency plans for the worst happening.
Look at what has happened with recent natural disasters. Puerto Rico is STILL in shambles. And while unrelated to climate change, Flint Michigan's water is STILL undrinkable.
The terrifying part of climate change isn't that things will be harder, it's that our governments are completely unprepared to address it. One of the major political parties is fighting against any modicum of effort that WOULD help to address it.
Look at what has happened with recent natural disasters. Puerto Rico is STILL in shambles. And while unrelated to climate change, Flint Michigan's water is STILL undrinkable.
The terrifying part of climate change isn't that things will be harder, it's that our governments are completely unprepared to address it. One of the major political parties is fighting against any modicum of effort that WOULD help to address it.
It’s on the front page of nearly every major news source nearly every week, it’s pretty hard not to notice. It’s not like people don’t realize something is going on, most just don’t want to think about it that hard. And can you blame them? The average person has approximately no impact on global climate change.
Yes, most people are aware of it. But the common comment I get from people is that it's not going to disrupt our lives very soon. And I bet the disruption will come much faster than they think
> It’s on the front page of nearly every major news source nearly every week
It also gets flagged off the front page with regularity, as was this thread.
And no, I don't blame the average person. I blame those who disenfranchised and infantilised the average person in the pursuit of profit and power, and the intellectuals who played cheerleaders for it.
> FROMM: Like for instance, that we are confronted with the possibility of a war of such destruction that the whole existence of our nation and of the whole world is at stake. And yet, people know it - people read it in the newspapers, people read that at the first attack, a hundred million Americans might be killed.And yet, they talk about it as if they were talking about something being wrong with the carburetor of their car, perhaps. Actually, they have paid more attention to the danger of a flu epidemic than to the danger of the atomic bomb, because...
> WALLACE: Don't you think that's a little overstatement, Dr. Fromm?
> FROMM: Well, I wish it were, because what I see is relatively few people who experience, who feel, the danger, which we are threatened with, and who feel the responsibility of doing something about it.
> WALLACE: Or maybe, when you talk about the responsibility of doing something, maybe it simply is this: that we find it very difficult to make ourselves felt in this amorphous society in which we live. Each individual would want to do something but would find it difficult to make himself felt.
> FROMM: Well, I think here you point out to one, really, of the basic defects of our system: that the individual citizen has very little possibility of having any influence - of making his opinion felt in the decision-making. And I think that, in itself, leads to a good deal of political lethargy and stupidity. It is true that one has to think first and then to act -but it's also true that if one has no possibility of acting, one's thinking kind of becomes empty and stupid.
-- Erich Fromm, "The Mike Wallace Interview", 25th of May 1958 (!)
And then that "stupidity" is used to justify even more of what created it. It's a constant refrain on HN too, where "the average user" is used to excuse all sorts of shitty software and reduction of options. It's like saying that someone is too weak to go for a walk, so they should remain in bed until their muscles got stronger. We do this all over the place, in all sorts of areas, and have been at it for decades.
It also gets flagged off the front page with regularity, as was this thread.
And no, I don't blame the average person. I blame those who disenfranchised and infantilised the average person in the pursuit of profit and power, and the intellectuals who played cheerleaders for it.
> FROMM: Like for instance, that we are confronted with the possibility of a war of such destruction that the whole existence of our nation and of the whole world is at stake. And yet, people know it - people read it in the newspapers, people read that at the first attack, a hundred million Americans might be killed.And yet, they talk about it as if they were talking about something being wrong with the carburetor of their car, perhaps. Actually, they have paid more attention to the danger of a flu epidemic than to the danger of the atomic bomb, because...
> WALLACE: Don't you think that's a little overstatement, Dr. Fromm?
> FROMM: Well, I wish it were, because what I see is relatively few people who experience, who feel, the danger, which we are threatened with, and who feel the responsibility of doing something about it.
> WALLACE: Or maybe, when you talk about the responsibility of doing something, maybe it simply is this: that we find it very difficult to make ourselves felt in this amorphous society in which we live. Each individual would want to do something but would find it difficult to make himself felt.
> FROMM: Well, I think here you point out to one, really, of the basic defects of our system: that the individual citizen has very little possibility of having any influence - of making his opinion felt in the decision-making. And I think that, in itself, leads to a good deal of political lethargy and stupidity. It is true that one has to think first and then to act -but it's also true that if one has no possibility of acting, one's thinking kind of becomes empty and stupid.
-- Erich Fromm, "The Mike Wallace Interview", 25th of May 1958 (!)
And then that "stupidity" is used to justify even more of what created it. It's a constant refrain on HN too, where "the average user" is used to excuse all sorts of shitty software and reduction of options. It's like saying that someone is too weak to go for a walk, so they should remain in bed until their muscles got stronger. We do this all over the place, in all sorts of areas, and have been at it for decades.
Life and reality are very grim. IMO there are more reasons to be unhappy than unhappy. The only reason any of us is able to avoid crushing misery is by building up walls to keep physical reminders away and having mental walls to keep thoughts away. The climate's being destroyed, ocean life is being annihilated, slavery exists as much as it ever has, much darker crimes happen constantly and at horrifying scale daily, etc. There is no solution to these problems as an individual, just to find a way to avoid dwelling on the bad and selectively notice the good.
My feelings exactly. Just know that you’re not alone.
Are we looking at data or this is a media driven anxiety?
Edit: I usually keep up with NOAA's state of climate updates on monthly basis here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
Edit: I usually keep up with NOAA's state of climate updates on monthly basis here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
I don't have anxiety about global warming. My thought is mostly about the heat wave where I live.
Intellectually, I know it's something to be worried about and that we should take care of now rather than later.
Intellectually, I know it's something to be worried about and that we should take care of now rather than later.
The subreddit /r/collapesupport has many great threads and articles about this. Sort by top.
Relax. We're going to not only hit every tipping point, but we're going to rocket past all of them.
I think the best we can hope for is that this rocket will eventually fall back to earth. When things get too bad humanity will find a way. Of course likely not before a lot of suffering occurs.
The other best thing you can hope for is that the worst of this suffering won't happen in your lifetime.
Let's face it though, resolving the issue BEFORE the tipping point is impossible.
I'm getting voted down, but seriously come back here in 10 years. My prediction is the most likely possible occurrence. Some of the worst case scenarios of global warming WILL play out. It did for COVID, it will for global warming. Even in the thick of the pandemic we still have anti-vaxers and anti-maskers. The same will happen with global warming, even in the thick of it we'll have tons of people who are against mitigating it.
I think the best we can hope for is that this rocket will eventually fall back to earth. When things get too bad humanity will find a way. Of course likely not before a lot of suffering occurs.
The other best thing you can hope for is that the worst of this suffering won't happen in your lifetime.
Let's face it though, resolving the issue BEFORE the tipping point is impossible.
I'm getting voted down, but seriously come back here in 10 years. My prediction is the most likely possible occurrence. Some of the worst case scenarios of global warming WILL play out. It did for COVID, it will for global warming. Even in the thick of the pandemic we still have anti-vaxers and anti-maskers. The same will happen with global warming, even in the thick of it we'll have tons of people who are against mitigating it.
The solutions mentioned:
-Phasing out and eliminating fossil fuels
-Implementing "a significant carbon price"
-Restoring ecosystems such as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots
All policy issues. Given the amount of regulatory capture, it seems like a fourth obvious solution would require significant changes to the incentives for politicians or how lobbying is conducted by fossil fuel ecosystem companies.
-Phasing out and eliminating fossil fuels
-Implementing "a significant carbon price"
-Restoring ecosystems such as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots
All policy issues. Given the amount of regulatory capture, it seems like a fourth obvious solution would require significant changes to the incentives for politicians or how lobbying is conducted by fossil fuel ecosystem companies.
I'm always a little confused by these suggestions because what I've heard from the researchers, directly, seems a bit different (or rather their list is more inclusive). I had the opportunity to work at some DOE labs and while there attended a lot of climate talks. One thing they always mention is carbon sequestration. It seems a lot of groups like Green Peace and Sierra Nevada are against CCS that isn't biological, where the researchers tend to be of the position "we're so fucked that even planting as many trees as we can AND building CCS systems isn't enough". So I find it weird that point #3 here is purely an environmental one. And at these talks there's always some intern that asks about nuclear, and there's almost always the same blunt answer "that'd be great and help, but it is never going to happen" (note DOE labs also research nuclear reactors and weapons, so some of these people work on reactors). There's more that they suggest, but going to these talks can often be depressing because it's not just the political will. We don't even have the technology (which in part is due to political will. Damn coupled equations).
What I learned from them is "don't take anything off the table, we're that fucked." And so whenever I read articles like this I always question why they leave things off the table and do not mention that we currently do not have the technological means to solve the issue. They tend to focus on electricity production and vehicle emissions, but also things like heating/cooling (which creates a feedback loop because adapting to climate change we need more of these technologies).
If you do ever get the chance to attend talks like these I do highly suggest going to them and asking a lot of questions. Climate researchers tend to be extremely passionate and will talk your ears off (in a good way).
What I learned from them is "don't take anything off the table, we're that fucked." And so whenever I read articles like this I always question why they leave things off the table and do not mention that we currently do not have the technological means to solve the issue. They tend to focus on electricity production and vehicle emissions, but also things like heating/cooling (which creates a feedback loop because adapting to climate change we need more of these technologies).
If you do ever get the chance to attend talks like these I do highly suggest going to them and asking a lot of questions. Climate researchers tend to be extremely passionate and will talk your ears off (in a good way).
The devil is in the details:
- How quickly do we phase out fossil fuels. Less than 5 years is un realistic but more then 20 years is probably too long to wait
- How much should we charge for carbon emissions?
- How do we restore ecosystems that took millions of years to form?
- How quickly do we phase out fossil fuels. Less than 5 years is un realistic but more then 20 years is probably too long to wait
- How much should we charge for carbon emissions?
- How do we restore ecosystems that took millions of years to form?
I do feel the focus on lobbyists and corruption distracts from the more serious problem: part of the solution will have to involve reducing certain luxuries for many upper-middle-class people: less real meat, less AC in the summer, less driving, much more expensive clothing and furniture, etc. ExxonMobil isn’t the problem here, it’s ordinary citizens who don’t want to make the sacrifice. And the problem isn’t “corrupt politicians” so much as “politicians who want to win elections,” aka all politicians. And “we simply have to elect liars who are guaranteed to lose their election after betraying their voters” isn’t an option.
The process will certainly involve some pain and serious injustices, even if it’s necessary for the long term. Reducing meat consumption in particular is one that won’t be solved by electric generation technology, and lies directly on powerful cultural fault points in the US/Canada (“it’s the hippies and college professors who took your pork chops and bankrupted our hard working farmers!”). And eventually we will simply have to ban beef and pork.
The process will certainly involve some pain and serious injustices, even if it’s necessary for the long term. Reducing meat consumption in particular is one that won’t be solved by electric generation technology, and lies directly on powerful cultural fault points in the US/Canada (“it’s the hippies and college professors who took your pork chops and bankrupted our hard working farmers!”). And eventually we will simply have to ban beef and pork.
No, I'm sure we are just a few peaceful protests away from changing their minds.
Somehow the phrase "being the first against the wall when the revolution comes" has been in my mind lately.
(This is not a threat. It's just that a certain group of old mostly-men have the extremely dubious honor of being the first human beings ever to single-handedly make the entire planet a worse place to live for whole new generations of humans, and the latter may rightfully be slightly resentful about that.)
(This is not a threat. It's just that a certain group of old mostly-men have the extremely dubious honor of being the first human beings ever to single-handedly make the entire planet a worse place to live for whole new generations of humans, and the latter may rightfully be slightly resentful about that.)
> it seems like a fourth obvious solution would require significant changes to the incentives for politicians
Politicians are choosen. By people like you and me. Obviously (to me) you and me like to look the other way, trying to ignore serious problems as long as possible. YOLO.
Politicians are choosen. By people like you and me. Obviously (to me) you and me like to look the other way, trying to ignore serious problems as long as possible. YOLO.
Taxing negative externalities won't work here; bean counters just add that to the price of business.
Only thing that will work is government subsidies to invest in cleaner technology and have them rival whatever we give oil companies. We can take the latter away, but we need a lot of baby boomers to die off first; there's too many in power that won't stand for it.
Only thing that will work is government subsidies to invest in cleaner technology and have them rival whatever we give oil companies. We can take the latter away, but we need a lot of baby boomers to die off first; there's too many in power that won't stand for it.
Why will taxation (or better yet remove subsidies for extraction) not work?
At some price point, the economics of extraction simply don't make sense anymore vs. other means of energy production (see: coal, nuclear).
We have an extraction "economy" mainly because of government subsidies and support. And that continuing because extraction industries have corrupted governments.
At some price point, the economics of extraction simply don't make sense anymore vs. other means of energy production (see: coal, nuclear).
We have an extraction "economy" mainly because of government subsidies and support. And that continuing because extraction industries have corrupted governments.
No government on the planet has enough balls to enact enough taxes for it to be worth companies to switch to cleaner energies. That's why it won't work.
It will if there are cheaper alternatives.
Bean counters still use the cheapest means of production to run business. Burning fossils isn't required for most businesses, it's just the cheapest way to do business.
For example, if carbon taxes are high, then all the sudden trains becomes super economical so you can expect a large increase in train shipping vs truck shipping.
Bean counters still use the cheapest means of production to run business. Burning fossils isn't required for most businesses, it's just the cheapest way to do business.
For example, if carbon taxes are high, then all the sudden trains becomes super economical so you can expect a large increase in train shipping vs truck shipping.
It's too late.
This is a slow-moving population explosion with its impact only fully realized when global quality of life normalizes, not when population growth slows, stops, or even reverses.
China is now emitting over double the CO2 of USA. It's no coincidence that China has over a billion people who in large part relatively recently came out of the dirt and started living first-world lifestyles.
India is next in line to repeat China's pattern, another billion.
Americans trying to fix the climate disaster at this point is comically futile, unless you're considering the war path to prevent literally a billion+ more people from joining the first-world. You're simply not in the driver's seat.
This is a slow-moving population explosion with its impact only fully realized when global quality of life normalizes, not when population growth slows, stops, or even reverses.
China is now emitting over double the CO2 of USA. It's no coincidence that China has over a billion people who in large part relatively recently came out of the dirt and started living first-world lifestyles.
India is next in line to repeat China's pattern, another billion.
Americans trying to fix the climate disaster at this point is comically futile, unless you're considering the war path to prevent literally a billion+ more people from joining the first-world. You're simply not in the driver's seat.
The net effect is all worldwide industry is moving to China because they can pollute. It's a humungous prisoner's dilemma and they're defecting while we're cooperating and none of the climate alarmists are calling them out on it. I'd be paying the alarmists to do this if I was working for China.
Governments’ inability to deal with Covid - something that required only a few weeks to months (rather than decades) forethought based on data - is likely a harbinger of how badly we’re going to deal with climate change.
For some reason we seem paralysed and unable to really act until disaster is moments away. Is it politics or just human nature?
For some reason we seem paralysed and unable to really act until disaster is moments away. Is it politics or just human nature?
Politics emerge from human behavior. At the base it's human nature. We as a species are not good at taking action to mitigate risks that aren't immediate. We had plenty of warning - the idea was beginning to emerge even back in the 50s and certainly by the 70s our leaders were quite aware.
We are excellent at assessing risk. We developed science and statistics and we have the technology and knowledge to even be aware that this is a problem. We also have the amazing technology to spread this knowledge and make everyone aware of the issue. No other living species has the capability of doing this at all. It is an unprecedented ability.
The other thing humans are really good at are lying to ourselves and procrastinating. The tragedy of the commons is a part of it. These are the main factors that contribute to our downfall. Especially the tragedy of the commons.
The other thing humans are really good at are lying to ourselves and procrastinating. The tragedy of the commons is a part of it. These are the main factors that contribute to our downfall. Especially the tragedy of the commons.
Not a popular opinion, but I have a lot of faith in humanity's _future_ engineering ability. Yes, we are dealing with climate consequences right now. And yes, we should be trying to improve resource efficiency right now. But that said, the worst is almost certainly yet to come, and it is exceedingly difficult to solve the problems of tomorrow with the technology today.
A little anecdote to illustrate this is that at the turn of the last century the streets of New York City were projected to be buried under 10 feet of horse shit. No joke. Was that a silly scenario to consider? Not really. But it turned out to be completely resolved by unforeseen technological improvements that made the entire conjecture nonsensical.
Just spit-balling, but let's say we crack fusion technology in the next 50 years and unlock effectively limitless energy. With free power maybe we run massive atmospheric scrubbers and bury CO2 and methane in the earth. I'm sure there are other climate control techniques that unlimited power unlocks.
My point is this: think back at any point in the last 500 years and try to imagine them solving the problems of 100 years into the future. It's a laughable thought experiment. Their solutions would have been ludicrous given the technology that future generations develop. What hubris it takes to not realize that we are _at least_ as primitive in relation to future generations.
A little anecdote to illustrate this is that at the turn of the last century the streets of New York City were projected to be buried under 10 feet of horse shit. No joke. Was that a silly scenario to consider? Not really. But it turned out to be completely resolved by unforeseen technological improvements that made the entire conjecture nonsensical.
Just spit-balling, but let's say we crack fusion technology in the next 50 years and unlock effectively limitless energy. With free power maybe we run massive atmospheric scrubbers and bury CO2 and methane in the earth. I'm sure there are other climate control techniques that unlimited power unlocks.
My point is this: think back at any point in the last 500 years and try to imagine them solving the problems of 100 years into the future. It's a laughable thought experiment. Their solutions would have been ludicrous given the technology that future generations develop. What hubris it takes to not realize that we are _at least_ as primitive in relation to future generations.
50 years ago was 1970. We had solar power, nuclear energy, wind energy, and plastics.
The energy landscape today looks exactly the same as it did in 1970. The only difference is renewables are significantly cheaper and batteries significantly better. Fusion looks to be just as close today as it looked to be in the 1970s.
The energy landscape today looks exactly the same as it did in 1970. The only difference is renewables are significantly cheaper and batteries significantly better. Fusion looks to be just as close today as it looked to be in the 1970s.
Honest question: Shouldn't we hedge our bets at this point and also start investing heavily in infrastructure that helps mitigate the worst of the effects? (Flood management, water desalination, cloud seeding, etc.) I feel the race to zero emissions is a trendy topic now in media, but perhaps we are past the "we can still stop bad things from happening" point.
Rule #1 when you find yourself in a hole: stop digging. Sure, there are other things you could/should do as well, but "to stop digging" should be your #1 priority.
Or, put another way, we're waaaay past "we can stop every bad thing from happening" point, but we're still in the "we can stop even more bad things from happening" range, and we won't be out of that range anytime soon - at least I hope so, I don't want to imagine what it would be like "Everything that can go wrong has already gone wrong so there's no point worrying any more."
Or, put another way, we're waaaay past "we can stop every bad thing from happening" point, but we're still in the "we can stop even more bad things from happening" range, and we won't be out of that range anytime soon - at least I hope so, I don't want to imagine what it would be like "Everything that can go wrong has already gone wrong so there's no point worrying any more."
It's not quite that simple. It will take decades for us to stop emitting GHGs and destroying the environment. The inertia is too high even in Western nations, and that ignores the problems in China and India.
"stop digging" should be our primary priority, but not at the expense of other solutions which can also be pursued in parallel.
"stop digging" should be our primary priority, but not at the expense of other solutions which can also be pursued in parallel.
> Shouldn't we hedge our bets at this point and also start investing heavily in infrastructure that helps mitigate the worst of the effects?
Should have been from the start. There are so many climate change variables outside of human control (sunspots, volcanic eruptions, etc...) that it's better to just be prepared.
Should have been from the start. There are so many climate change variables outside of human control (sunspots, volcanic eruptions, etc...) that it's better to just be prepared.
Mitigation is going to happen no matter what. All of the things you mentioned are already happening as temporary stopgap measures.
The issue is that investing in decarbonization, etc., is both a superior long-term strategy AND it makes all of the mitigation strategies you mention more effective bc the primary effects are not as bad.
The issue is that investing in decarbonization, etc., is both a superior long-term strategy AND it makes all of the mitigation strategies you mention more effective bc the primary effects are not as bad.
This seems to make sense. I very much doubt the US, Russia, China and a large number of emerging economies are going to make large enough changes to have an impact and they are the main drivers. Seems to make sense to just assume at this point that its coming while working to try and stop it.
I'm no fan of the Chinese government but from what I'm gleaning online, they seem to be leading the charge with adoption of green technologies and are taking climate change relatively seriously.
Yeah, probably. But we need to be careful about higher order effects of those interventions. Climates and ecosystems are complex systems, thus, perturbations/linear solutions usually cause unexpected behaviour.
Things like desalination where we aren't disturbing the system is fine. Cloud seeding on the other hand I wouldn't be so comfortable with widespread adoption.
Things like desalination where we aren't disturbing the system is fine. Cloud seeding on the other hand I wouldn't be so comfortable with widespread adoption.
Even some geoengineering like shooting a lot of reflective particulates high into the upper atmosphere - we need to start thinking pretty seriously about how to do this. It won't be without side effects, but the current side effects of continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere without restraint are going to force us to consider things like this.
Mitigation and adaptation are big topics within the field, and yes, we're going to need a shitload of both even in the best case scenario. Unfortunately, the hundreds of millions of people who are worst affected by climate change are also in the worst position to do anything to improve their situation.
Yup, smart money will move in this direction. It’s far too late to try to work against the titanic forces that are in motion. Large scale climate engineering is probably going to be needed.
Even if we full stop emitting now, the CO2 and the methane in the atmosphere will keep doing its warming work. And there are now more sources GHG, some of them are methane from melting permafrost, or CO2 from forest fires, and not sure how much the cloud cover would change with more heat.
You have the exponential trend of growing global average temperature, and the exponential trends of triggered positive feedback mechanisms.
If we want to revert this, we have to offset not just our emissions, but the triggered emissions too, remove the extra carbon from the atmosphere, and lower the temperature, without all four there will be no long term solution, just a continued trend towards conditions not compatible with human life or civilization as we know it now.
You have the exponential trend of growing global average temperature, and the exponential trends of triggered positive feedback mechanisms.
If we want to revert this, we have to offset not just our emissions, but the triggered emissions too, remove the extra carbon from the atmosphere, and lower the temperature, without all four there will be no long term solution, just a continued trend towards conditions not compatible with human life or civilization as we know it now.
They should just stop the warnings already. We already fell off the cliff. We are in free-fall. At this point all we can hope for is that MacGyver builds us a parachute out of a roll of toiler paper, some bubble gum, and shoelaces, before we hit the pavement.
> carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere was higher than at any time since measurements began.
How much co2 is there in the atmosphere now that we don’t want to be there? Wondering how big a pile of dry ice that would make
How much co2 is there in the atmosphere now that we don’t want to be there? Wondering how big a pile of dry ice that would make
A seriously significant price on carbon should impact the use of jet and bunker fuel; but that would need to be applied at participating ports, and not by the countries whose flags are flown on the ships or painted on the airliner.
Has there been much talk of ports applying carbon taxes in this way?
Has there been much talk of ports applying carbon taxes in this way?
Who built more coal plants last year than the rest of the world shut down last year? Who benefits from the low price of coal thanks to the world cutting back their use of coal? Who grew their industrial economy dramatically last year? Who is the biggest carbon polluter out there?
They are laughing all the way to being the next superpower thanks to the west's carbon austerity.
How are our carbon sins magically absolved if we just transfer them to this country and shift all our industrial production there?
The practical effect is the deindustrialization of the west and the building up of their industry with negligible net reduction in carbon emissions.
If this was an intentional policy to impoverish the west and increase some country's economic power with little net environmental impact, it couldn't have been better designed.
They are laughing all the way to being the next superpower thanks to the west's carbon austerity.
How are our carbon sins magically absolved if we just transfer them to this country and shift all our industrial production there?
The practical effect is the deindustrialization of the west and the building up of their industry with negligible net reduction in carbon emissions.
If this was an intentional policy to impoverish the west and increase some country's economic power with little net environmental impact, it couldn't have been better designed.
Some interesting history of climate anxiety with a zenith in 1975 https://t.co/oXM5Zf8V7d?amp=1
There was no scientific consensus of global cooling. [1]
Cherry picked bad evidence from 4 decades ago is not a rational basis to ignore the scientific consensus that the entire Earth faces enormous challenges.
That video validates climate anxiety because it shows how scientifically-unsupported ideas can propagate and lead the public to false conclusions with potentially dire consequences.
[1] https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
Cherry picked bad evidence from 4 decades ago is not a rational basis to ignore the scientific consensus that the entire Earth faces enormous challenges.
That video validates climate anxiety because it shows how scientifically-unsupported ideas can propagate and lead the public to false conclusions with potentially dire consequences.
[1] https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, __on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales__."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bam...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bam...
Very interesting! What conclusion should I draw from this, that unlimited growth and pollution are fine?
I can't speak for Simon, but I'd suggest commonsense stewardship of the planet is paramount and that the endless gloomy earth weather hysteria (particularly from academics) is very unhealthy and negative for humanity.
The problem with the argument is that it assumes the only thing we can do to determine the validity of a claim is to evaluate how convinced certain other people are that the claim is true. He argues that, because scientists in 1975 were (supposedly) as convinced that global cooling was real as scientists today are convinced that global warming is real, we have no other means of determining whether either of these claims are true. Presumably he would also say that, because people before the Copernican Revolution were equally convinced of the heliocentric model as people after the Copernican Revolution were convinced of the geocentric model, we have no means whatsoever of determining whether either claim is true.
Man, if we had only taken it seriously back then...
Petrochem companies did. They spent serious money in order to dissuade the public from taking it seriously. Not that the public needed much dissuading.
Interested to hear more about petrochem spending 'serious money in order to dissuade the public from taking 'it' seriously'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MondapIjAAM
all the videos the Climate Town guy puts out are great, but this one is highly pertinent.
all the videos the Climate Town guy puts out are great, but this one is highly pertinent.
Familiar with these. Did you watch the video I posted about climate anxiety fashions?
Just did, I see your question was coming from the other direction. lol
Jimmy Carter was a prophet and they ran him out of town.
How is beef from 1975 relevant for my 2021 California fried chickens ?
Do you mean 2021 California almonds, pistachios, strawberries, grapes and cattle?
Cal Almond business water usage is an outrage, agree there!
So we have passed a tipping point after which future tipping points cannot be avoided? Then are they really tipping points, or is the tipping point in the past?
22 Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of the chosen ones, those days will be shortened.Rev 11:18 "When the nations got angry, you became angry too! Now the time has come for the dead to be judged. It is time for you to reward your servants the prophets and all your people who honor your name, no matter who they are. It is time to destroy everyone who has destroyed the earth."
(Read it in Johnny Cash's voice)
The evangelicals assume God doesn't care about the earth, that he gave it to them to do with whatever they like. They might be overlooking something.
(Read it in Johnny Cash's voice)
The evangelicals assume God doesn't care about the earth, that he gave it to them to do with whatever they like. They might be overlooking something.
Koyaanisquatsi
crazy life
life in turmoil
life out of balance
life disintegrating
a state of life that calls for a new way of livng
"if we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster"
"Near the day of purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky"
"a container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans"
13 One of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are arrayed in white robes, who are they, and from where did they come?”
crazy life
life in turmoil
life out of balance
life disintegrating
a state of life that calls for a new way of livng
"if we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster"
"Near the day of purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky"
"a container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans"
13 One of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are arrayed in white robes, who are they, and from where did they come?”
14 I told him, “My lord, you know.”
How is Germany assessed as medium? A Country that removed more wind turbines than it put up from 2017-2019 and replaced with gas/coal.
Do you have a source for that? All I found indicates that its share of energy production has increased considerably in those years [1].
[1]https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/239528/umfrag...
[1]https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/239528/umfrag...
I think I was remembering this DW video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5PEAK1t3U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5PEAK1t3U
https://interestingengineering.com/german-coal-plant-closes-...
Yeah they replaced wind with coal with wind.
Yeah they replaced wind with coal with wind.
"imminent", lol