A forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation(nature.com)
nature.com
A forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w
323 comments
I found a lot of helpful context for understanding the research (and the implications if its forecast proved accurate) in https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-...
I’m a physical oceanographer. While I have only skimmed this article I would like to make two quick comments.
1) The AMOC is one of the most studied parts of the world ocean and predictions about its collapse have been made since Stommel in 1961. I think in general any study on its imminent collapse should be taken with a grain of salt and it would be wise to wait for further replication and the consensus of the community. You can google AMOC collapse and find articles stretching back decades.
2) This may be my bias a dynamacist but I am skeptical of purely statistical models of AMOC collapse. The AMOC is complex and trying to predict the time of a complete collapse is a significant simplification (especially when, as the authors note, a slowdown rather than shutdown of the AMOC seems more likely from our current understanding).
Nevertheless this is a very interesting study and contribution to the field.
Edit: @abathur posted a wonderful link below that I wanted to spread further: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-...
1) The AMOC is one of the most studied parts of the world ocean and predictions about its collapse have been made since Stommel in 1961. I think in general any study on its imminent collapse should be taken with a grain of salt and it would be wise to wait for further replication and the consensus of the community. You can google AMOC collapse and find articles stretching back decades.
2) This may be my bias a dynamacist but I am skeptical of purely statistical models of AMOC collapse. The AMOC is complex and trying to predict the time of a complete collapse is a significant simplification (especially when, as the authors note, a slowdown rather than shutdown of the AMOC seems more likely from our current understanding).
Nevertheless this is a very interesting study and contribution to the field.
Edit: @abathur posted a wonderful link below that I wanted to spread further: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-...
The terms "imminent" and "predict the time" seem like missing the point of the article you acknowledged you have only skimmed.
I felt the article was clear collapse is not imminent, not even in this century.
I felt it noted focus was not on imminence, but on changes worth mentioning in aspects of interest.
Perhaps the difference is this article is talking of timing for transitions of significance, rather than the forthcoming collapse more likely to arrive sooner after such transitions?
I felt the article was clear collapse is not imminent, not even in this century.
I felt it noted focus was not on imminence, but on changes worth mentioning in aspects of interest.
Perhaps the difference is this article is talking of timing for transitions of significance, rather than the forthcoming collapse more likely to arrive sooner after such transitions?
You are completely correct I regret that word choice now. I was rushing to comment because I felt it was important to provide context on AMOC collapse scholarship.
Memento mori: top comment made the same mistake[1], your contributions reinforced the top comment, and your separate individual reply is the second comment.
Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening shortly by X date", but its just a statistical model :(
Don't mean to make you feel bad or call you out, most people don't read the article if it's popular. It's my attempt to give a little back to the community to note it, been here a very long time, and when people try calling it out coarsely it isn't constructive.
[1] sort of: they understood it was a statistical model but spent so much time hand-wringing about Nature publishing a statistical model that it came off like there was something wrong with the article, causing a rush of replies of "how can I trust anything??"
Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening shortly by X date", but its just a statistical model :(
Don't mean to make you feel bad or call you out, most people don't read the article if it's popular. It's my attempt to give a little back to the community to note it, been here a very long time, and when people try calling it out coarsely it isn't constructive.
[1] sort of: they understood it was a statistical model but spent so much time hand-wringing about Nature publishing a statistical model that it came off like there was something wrong with the article, causing a rush of replies of "how can I trust anything??"
Thank you for your kind tone (genuinely). I understand your concern. I certainly hope it does not become a debate about scientific trust for hours although you are right its headed that way. I have a great amount of trust in the scientific consensus, am a publishing climate scientist myself, and did genuinely enjoy this paper. It is my opinion that is instructive for people to know that studies on AMOC collapse are often misinterpreted when they are spread widely, similar maybe to headlines about experimental new battery designs. I do not think that the authors of the study have any ill intent or that their work is unimportant, but rather that AMOC collapse is an incredibly complex topic and that when studies on it are often posted to sites like hacker news (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085342 I have been here a decade just not on this throwaway ;) ) they are often taken as a significant change in the understanding of the field which they are not (yet at least).
I see your point that harping on this fact is perhaps boring and repetitive so I apologize for that.
I see your point that harping on this fact is perhaps boring and repetitive so I apologize for that.
I've more than once made a late comment to a thread that I've felt has gone ... seriously pear-shaped ... and found that comment rising to or near the top of the thread.
HN does reward earliness somewhat, but less so than many other fora.
Focus more on getting it right than getting it fast.
HN does reward earliness somewhat, but less so than many other fora.
Focus more on getting it right than getting it fast.
I don't know. I'd rather have the top comment be from a physical oceanographer than from, say, some random web programmer. Both the perspective and the background context information are valuable.
This is the single biggest flaw in how HN discussions are formed. I almost always downvote the top comment. Often they completely derail any sort of meaningful discussion. I have fantasized around a "forum garden" where we could experiment with other ways of facilitating discussions.
There should at least be several ways to sort the comments (like reddit) and then each page load should randomly select one way to sort it unless a user has explicitly set a sort method preference in their account settings.
For myself, I’m looking for a forum that has no up votes or down votes.
It has nothing to do with downvotes. The first person to show up decides the entire future direction of the conversation.
One presentation format which utterly flips this is to post newest message first.
Random ordering can also work.
(Newest first has its own issues, notably of late-hit low-value comments. But the overall effect on the thread discussion of early low-value comments is reduced.)
Random ordering can also work.
(Newest first has its own issues, notably of late-hit low-value comments. But the overall effect on the thread discussion of early low-value comments is reduced.)
Which is a great idea and HN does.
I'd love to see a chatmodel as a forum board moderator. They understand nuances, so it would be able to spot people just fighting or adding too much snark. A real net nanny.
I'd love to see a chatmodel as a forum board moderator. They understand nuances, so it would be able to spot people just fighting or adding too much snark. A real net nanny.
It's mentions a potential collapse as early as 2025. More precisely 2025-2095. That is this century and it's accurate to say 2025 is imminent.
Yes, but I - and probably you - will die sometime between 2025 and 2095. I wouldn't say that therefore our deaths are imminent.
That’s a ridiculous comparison. Single human lifetimes are only measured in decades.
If the entirety of humans were very likely to be wiped out from 2025 to 2095, you would definitely call that imminent, and is a much more apt comparison.
If the entirety of humans were very likely to be wiped out from 2025 to 2095, you would definitely call that imminent, and is a much more apt comparison.
That’s a ridiculous comparison. The vast majority of humans don't live anywhere near the Atlantic so there's no way the entirety of humans would be wiped out. My comparison was much more apt.
The number of people the collapse would affect is a whole lot closer to “the total human population” than “1 person”.
Right but that's just you making a bad comparison on the timescale of this thing having collapsed previously it's pretty imminent.
Likely, but if the collapse happens in say 2030, the rest of my life and that of almost everyone else, however short or long that may be, is not going to be pleasent.
Regardless, I would like to see humanity safely thrive. I don't want earth to become an example of the great filter theory.
Regardless, I would like to see humanity safely thrive. I don't want earth to become an example of the great filter theory.
2095 isn’t, but 2025 sure is if I’m thinking about my death! Also, for an event like this, even 70 years out seems “imminent” To me.
Obviously, the OP does not have children or does not care about the future children are the future animals or the future anything
> It's mentions a potential collapse as early as 2025
"DOOM ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!" is a tale as old as time... revelations has been screaming the end is near for thousands of years now.
It's "accurate to say" that prophets and prophecies are notoriously wrong which is why signs that the ice caps will be gone by 2000 have been removed from state parks.
hint: they aren't gone.
"DOOM ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!" is a tale as old as time... revelations has been screaming the end is near for thousands of years now.
It's "accurate to say" that prophets and prophecies are notoriously wrong which is why signs that the ice caps will be gone by 2000 have been removed from state parks.
hint: they aren't gone.
Which previous doom sayer had mountains of evidence by thousands of scientists?
... all of them? Ice caps are still there and the world still isn't that much hotter than it normally is.
and "thousands of scientists" lol sure... thousands of priests say that miracles happen.
Meanwhile... those same "scientists" are silent as the solutions to "climate catastrophe" are mountains of "green" tech that's unrecyclable after destroying the earth to create batteries, wind mills and solar panels that under perform and end up in land fills.
https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-belie...
But... if that's not enough? What about scientists - including Nobel prize winning scientists - that say there are no crisis?
My opinion? "Climate Change" is a religion just like other religions - some truth mixed with a lot of "follow what I say or WE'RE ALL DEAD!". Literally 100 years of failed predictions making global warming... I mean cooling... I mean acid rain... I mean CLIMATE CATSTROPHE! wrong at every step.
Can't have real conversations about real solutions to real problems when you're dealing with religious faithful which is why green solutions are going to fuck our planet up more than oil could ever dream of.
and "thousands of scientists" lol sure... thousands of priests say that miracles happen.
Meanwhile... those same "scientists" are silent as the solutions to "climate catastrophe" are mountains of "green" tech that's unrecyclable after destroying the earth to create batteries, wind mills and solar panels that under perform and end up in land fills.
https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-belie...
But... if that's not enough? What about scientists - including Nobel prize winning scientists - that say there are no crisis?
My opinion? "Climate Change" is a religion just like other religions - some truth mixed with a lot of "follow what I say or WE'RE ALL DEAD!". Literally 100 years of failed predictions making global warming... I mean cooling... I mean acid rain... I mean CLIMATE CATSTROPHE! wrong at every step.
Can't have real conversations about real solutions to real problems when you're dealing with religious faithful which is why green solutions are going to fuck our planet up more than oil could ever dream of.
... all of them?
Name one and show their evidence
Meanwhile... those same "scientists" are silent
What are you talking about
as the solutions to "climate catastrophe"
Now you are mixing 'solutions' with just admitting there is a problem.
My opinion? "Climate Change" is a religion just like other religions
Climate change has huge amounts of evidence behind it. A religion by definition doesn't. If a religion had evidence it would be science.
Can't have real conversations
Is this your version of a real conversation?
Name one and show their evidence
Meanwhile... those same "scientists" are silent
What are you talking about
as the solutions to "climate catastrophe"
Now you are mixing 'solutions' with just admitting there is a problem.
My opinion? "Climate Change" is a religion just like other religions
Climate change has huge amounts of evidence behind it. A religion by definition doesn't. If a religion had evidence it would be science.
Can't have real conversations
Is this your version of a real conversation?
So say it does collapse, in layman's terms what does that mean?
Europe would get cold.
Ocean currents bring lots of warm water from the south towards Europe making it quite a bit warmer than other places at similar latitudes. Cities in Europe are quite a bit further north than most people think.
Lots of other side effects as well would happen but be less known or surely predicted by models.
Ocean currents bring lots of warm water from the south towards Europe making it quite a bit warmer than other places at similar latitudes. Cities in Europe are quite a bit further north than most people think.
Lots of other side effects as well would happen but be less known or surely predicted by models.
Clear skies and drier weather should result in reduced cloud cover, which allows more direct sunlight to reach the surface during the day, leading to warmer temperatures.
During the night, the lack of cloud cover also means there is less insulation to trap the heat accumulated during the day.
This can lead to hot days and relatively cooler nights, which can be characteristic of certain climates, like in arid or desert regions.
During the night, the lack of cloud cover also means there is less insulation to trap the heat accumulated during the day.
This can lead to hot days and relatively cooler nights, which can be characteristic of certain climates, like in arid or desert regions.
[deleted]
Not just colder, also drier right?
Current stable pattern changes into another stable one, probably quickly. Or it may split into two independent stable patterns. It will not disappear. It may result in long term climatic changes in different geographies, especially during transition, although it would be rather quick.
Thanks for explaining that. I guess what I'm asking is... Will the sea life likely be okay? Human life? More hurricanes? No one knows?
For comparison, the El Niño / La Niña cycle, a/k/a the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) drives patterns of drought and excessive precipitation and severe storm activity across the Pacific basin, including Australia, Japan, and North & South America, with effects being felt into the Gulf of Mexico and by some accounts, Europe. Those result from shifts in sea-surface temperatures of about 0.5 °C / 1 °F.
AMOC is part of a tremendous thermal-energy circulation system from the tropics to the arctic within the Atlantic Ocean, and tying to global ocean circulation patterns. Specific impacts are difficult to identify, but could well be hotter tropics (and likely: stronger and more frequent hurricanes and extreme storms), colder North Atlantic (including a loss of the moderating influence of the Gulf Stream on Northern European climates, hence potentially far colder and more severe winters). There are also likely impacts on marine life, agriculture, general wildlife patterns (plant and animal), amongst others. Regional sea-level rise is another possible impact (through thermal expansion if I understand correctly).
Effectively: a predictable and beneficial pattern to which human and nonhuman life and existence has evolved over many thousands of years, if not longer, may be on the verge of complete disruption. That's an event without precedent for on the order of 10,000 years (since the end of the last major glaciation period).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o>
More on prospective impacts of an AMOC collapse:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...>
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1181-8>
<http://phys.org/news/2016-01-greenland-ice-sheet-affect-glob...>
AMOC is part of a tremendous thermal-energy circulation system from the tropics to the arctic within the Atlantic Ocean, and tying to global ocean circulation patterns. Specific impacts are difficult to identify, but could well be hotter tropics (and likely: stronger and more frequent hurricanes and extreme storms), colder North Atlantic (including a loss of the moderating influence of the Gulf Stream on Northern European climates, hence potentially far colder and more severe winters). There are also likely impacts on marine life, agriculture, general wildlife patterns (plant and animal), amongst others. Regional sea-level rise is another possible impact (through thermal expansion if I understand correctly).
Effectively: a predictable and beneficial pattern to which human and nonhuman life and existence has evolved over many thousands of years, if not longer, may be on the verge of complete disruption. That's an event without precedent for on the order of 10,000 years (since the end of the last major glaciation period).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o>
More on prospective impacts of an AMOC collapse:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...>
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1181-8>
<http://phys.org/news/2016-01-greenland-ice-sheet-affect-glob...>
Hurricane season on steroids for example if all this warm water accumulate in Florida instead to move to France.
Are you comparing Stommel's Box model to Bower's recent work? I would argue the latter is more "expressive" though yes, it depends on measurements we weren't collecting in the 60s.
No I am just noting that the AMOC bistability literature is decades long.
So is the climate change literature, it stretched back decades before we had concrete evidence that it was happening. Just because something is long predicted to be a risk by experts in a field, doesn't mean its likelihood of happening goes down.
I right read about AMOC back in 1997 while in university. It was fascinating and frightening back then. Still relevant today. It would be sad if it did actually end up happening in my lifetime, but humans are notoriously bad at reacting to bad things that might happening in the future - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. We tend to only really react once the bad thing has happened.
I right read about AMOC back in 1997 while in university. It was fascinating and frightening back then. Still relevant today. It would be sad if it did actually end up happening in my lifetime, but humans are notoriously bad at reacting to bad things that might happening in the future - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. We tend to only really react once the bad thing has happened.
Since you're familiar with this stuff, and I didn't see it in the article, what's the impact if it were to collapse? To the ecology? To the weather? To other ocean currents?
The article says the collapse would cause an ice age in Northern Europe. Would that "cure" global warming?
No.
Global warming is the effect of decreased solar radiation (as compared to how much solar energy is absorbed), thus more energy added to the Earth. A new ice age in Norther Europe might slightly increase that area's albido, which would increase solar radiation and in theory mitigate global warming. But truth is, the effect of that change in albido will be very small compared to the effect of the atmospheric CO2 (which traps the solar radiation).
Europe may be colder, but somewhere else is going to be much, much hotter.
Global warming is the effect of decreased solar radiation (as compared to how much solar energy is absorbed), thus more energy added to the Earth. A new ice age in Norther Europe might slightly increase that area's albido, which would increase solar radiation and in theory mitigate global warming. But truth is, the effect of that change in albido will be very small compared to the effect of the atmospheric CO2 (which traps the solar radiation).
Europe may be colder, but somewhere else is going to be much, much hotter.
You would think that adding that much ice in the atmosphere would cool it down a little, like putting an ice cube in a glass of water.
Where do you think that the "cold" in the ice comes from? It's just moving heat from one part of the planet to another.
The total amount of heat entering the Earth is increasing, cold spots not withstanding.
The total amount of heat entering the Earth is increasing, cold spots not withstanding.
I can't find any reference to ice age in the article, nor to consequences for Europe, where did I missed them?
I've read several articles on this today. It must have been another one.
GeoAtreides(4)
If you are a real oceanographer, why are you anonymous and using a throw away?
You want to both use your credentials to be taken seriously in your posts, but also you want to avoid too much scrutiny of who you are.
You want to both use your credentials to be taken seriously in your posts, but also you want to avoid too much scrutiny of who you are.
> You want to both use your credentials to be taken seriously in your posts, but also you want to avoid too much scrutiny of who you are.
Apply some philosophy on top of your "science" and you may learn something new and potentially interesting about your claim.
Apply some philosophy on top of your "science" and you may learn something new and potentially interesting about your claim.
I also commented something similar, before seeing your comment.
Not sure why people are eager to believe literally some guy on the internet. Maybe the people are afraid to believe the other guys, you know, the ones published in Nature.
Not sure why people are eager to believe literally some guy on the internet. Maybe the people are afraid to believe the other guys, you know, the ones published in Nature.
I've got a background in this field and I am very surprised to see this published in Nature. The model presented is purely statistical with no representation of the underlying physics. When we are dealing with a phenomenon that is driven by well-understood physical laws (e.g. geophysical fluid dynamics, radiation physics etc) then these physical models are the most reliable basis for prediction.
When I say physical models here by the way I'm referring to physically-based mathematical models as well as numerical models.
It seems that the authors have done a good job in developing their model. My issue is with Nature deciding to publish it. If this paper was not published in Nature it would receive little attention within or without climate science - in fact many such statistical models are published each year without much comment. However, Nature have published a paper that I think many ocean scientists would feel draws dramatic conclusions from a weak basis but will now inevitably draw much more attention than more insightful papers.
MIT professor Carl Wunsch accused Nature in 2010 of near-tabloid science with a tendency towards sensational papers built on weak foundations. However, I've felt that Nature's choice of publications on climate in recent years has been high quality. This paper feels like a big step-down from that standard.
When I say physical models here by the way I'm referring to physically-based mathematical models as well as numerical models.
It seems that the authors have done a good job in developing their model. My issue is with Nature deciding to publish it. If this paper was not published in Nature it would receive little attention within or without climate science - in fact many such statistical models are published each year without much comment. However, Nature have published a paper that I think many ocean scientists would feel draws dramatic conclusions from a weak basis but will now inevitably draw much more attention than more insightful papers.
MIT professor Carl Wunsch accused Nature in 2010 of near-tabloid science with a tendency towards sensational papers built on weak foundations. However, I've felt that Nature's choice of publications on climate in recent years has been high quality. This paper feels like a big step-down from that standard.
As a lay-bystander to the climate debate, I get a little spooked when I see comments like this. Like 99.9% of people, the science of complex climate systems is beyond me as are the de facto black box models that project
climate change. Instead I use “appears in a credible journal” as a basis for trusting the apparent direction of travel and I’m
disconcerted when I see that proxy challenged. I also, I am somewhat sorry to say, likely to discount anonymous comments as credible as there is so much propaganda in this space. That’s not to say I don’t understand the challenge of modeling complex systems, but want to point out that one of the most frustrating things about the climate debate is that the battling sides require us to take on trust what they tell us for some very big changes. It’s difficult.
Question for the community: how does one navigate such uncertainty?
Question for the community: how does one navigate such uncertainty?
Like you would any other thing that is outside your circle of influence: kick it out of your circle of concern because you aren't realistically speaking geared up to move yourself into a position where you do have influence. If you don't you end up with the global equivalent of a burn-out and it might start to affect your ability to make decisions about things that you do have influence over because it is paralyzing to be confronted with such overwhelming looking possible catastrophe in your life time.
Treat it like the weather prediction for next month, if it happens it happens and then you can react. If it starts to show up in the weather prediction for tomorrow it is time to factor it into your present day decisions.
Treat it like the weather prediction for next month, if it happens it happens and then you can react. If it starts to show up in the weather prediction for tomorrow it is time to factor it into your present day decisions.
As always I disagree... This is the attitude that "people in charge will do something for you, and if they don't I guess we'll cope" that is undemocratic and breeds passivity.
if you are concerned about something it does not mean you must be non stop stressed or forever abandon your life for single cause. You can be concerned and act in constructive ways (lead by example, talk about it, raise the issue, vote, etc), making strategic sacrifices but also living life. In fact you will probably be more satisfied this way than if you just felt you can't do anything and tried to not think about the white elephant. And it is the only way things change...
if you are concerned about something it does not mean you must be non stop stressed or forever abandon your life for single cause. You can be concerned and act in constructive ways (lead by example, talk about it, raise the issue, vote, etc), making strategic sacrifices but also living life. In fact you will probably be more satisfied this way than if you just felt you can't do anything and tried to not think about the white elephant. And it is the only way things change...
No, it is not that attitude at all. It is simply recognizing that there are some things that you will not be able to influence directly.
The only time when you have a fractional input on this is at the voting booth and even there the chance is that climate change will not be expressly put on the ballot but you get a mixture of components that you will be able to locally influence. But that sort of mechanism isn't well suited to deal with global problems. Global problems require global coordination and for everybody to play ball. For a variety of reasons (some good, some bad) this isn't going to happen. Climate change is fact. The consequences of climate change are already visible all over the globe. And yet: as long as there is money to be made by industry, wars rage all over the place and various possible checkpoints are passed no single individual that is wondering what they can personally do about it is going to make a shred of a difference by worrying about it to the point that it affects their day-to-day affairs.
Let me be blunt: the time to tackle climate change for real was when we first became aware of it. But all of the above inertia pretty much guaranteed and continues to guarantee that we will not act on a scale where it does matter until it is much, much too late. This year many people will die as a result of climate change. They have no voice but they are affected in the most drastic way possible. Next year it will be more and so on. Until the developed part of the world, and in particular the people in power in the developed part of the world are going to be personally and inescapably affected you're along for the ride.
If this particular thing concerns you and you are not non-stop stressed that only means that you haven't understood it yet.
The only time when you have a fractional input on this is at the voting booth and even there the chance is that climate change will not be expressly put on the ballot but you get a mixture of components that you will be able to locally influence. But that sort of mechanism isn't well suited to deal with global problems. Global problems require global coordination and for everybody to play ball. For a variety of reasons (some good, some bad) this isn't going to happen. Climate change is fact. The consequences of climate change are already visible all over the globe. And yet: as long as there is money to be made by industry, wars rage all over the place and various possible checkpoints are passed no single individual that is wondering what they can personally do about it is going to make a shred of a difference by worrying about it to the point that it affects their day-to-day affairs.
Let me be blunt: the time to tackle climate change for real was when we first became aware of it. But all of the above inertia pretty much guaranteed and continues to guarantee that we will not act on a scale where it does matter until it is much, much too late. This year many people will die as a result of climate change. They have no voice but they are affected in the most drastic way possible. Next year it will be more and so on. Until the developed part of the world, and in particular the people in power in the developed part of the world are going to be personally and inescapably affected you're along for the ride.
If this particular thing concerns you and you are not non-stop stressed that only means that you haven't understood it yet.
You are concerned, and you are a person in developed part of the world, so looks like it's not that bad eh? As long as you don't recuse yourself from the problem, of course
> If this particular thing concerns you and you are not non-stop stressed that only means that you haven't understood it yet.
That's a mentally unhealthy attitude. Whether something is of importance to you or not should not determine whether you are stressed over it, you can approach it on a balanced constructive way.
> If this particular thing concerns you and you are not non-stop stressed that only means that you haven't understood it yet.
That's a mentally unhealthy attitude. Whether something is of importance to you or not should not determine whether you are stressed over it, you can approach it on a balanced constructive way.
Well let's hope that either:
- your "fact" that democracy is the only way out of this is actually and adequately true
- one or more persons doesn't assume your wild guess is necessarily true and launches a Plan B
It's funny: backup plans are considered good for IT Enterprises, but not for the planet they are located on. Seems illogical, but it is what it is.
- your "fact" that democracy is the only way out of this is actually and adequately true
- one or more persons doesn't assume your wild guess is necessarily true and launches a Plan B
It's funny: backup plans are considered good for IT Enterprises, but not for the planet they are located on. Seems illogical, but it is what it is.
10 years ago: climate change? What climate change?
Today: oh yeah, climate change is real, but we should have done something about it 20 years ago, now it's too late...
Today: oh yeah, climate change is real, but we should have done something about it 20 years ago, now it's too late...
Indeed. And the annoying thing is that it's the people that didn't believe in climate change 20 years ago that made that a reality. There was a HN comment about this long ago that summed up those stages nicely.
It's frustrating to me on a personal level. Back in the early '00s it was pretty clear to me that we were headed for a massive problem. I did what I could to cut all kinds of ways in which we - as a family - were contributing. But in the end it had zero effect because the real agents of change weren't budging, not even a micro meter. So here we are today. The house I live in is more than energy neutral (my plans have been accelerated a bit on account of Putin's madness). But I make myself no illusion that it will matter, it's just a token bit of resistance, a tiny drop of green in an ocean of black.
Things I wonder about (but no longer worry about): will my children make it through this crisis that we have created? Will our political institutions somehow survive? How big a population - assuming we survive in some numbers - will there be left and will there still be enough structure standing that we don't have to start all over from scratch?
If you really start to think about the possible consequences of climate change you won't be having many good nights of sleep going forward. And there isn't a thing that you personally are going to be able to do about it, except maybe as a figleaf for your personal mental health.
Very, very frustrating.
It's frustrating to me on a personal level. Back in the early '00s it was pretty clear to me that we were headed for a massive problem. I did what I could to cut all kinds of ways in which we - as a family - were contributing. But in the end it had zero effect because the real agents of change weren't budging, not even a micro meter. So here we are today. The house I live in is more than energy neutral (my plans have been accelerated a bit on account of Putin's madness). But I make myself no illusion that it will matter, it's just a token bit of resistance, a tiny drop of green in an ocean of black.
Things I wonder about (but no longer worry about): will my children make it through this crisis that we have created? Will our political institutions somehow survive? How big a population - assuming we survive in some numbers - will there be left and will there still be enough structure standing that we don't have to start all over from scratch?
If you really start to think about the possible consequences of climate change you won't be having many good nights of sleep going forward. And there isn't a thing that you personally are going to be able to do about it, except maybe as a figleaf for your personal mental health.
Very, very frustrating.
Make that 50 years ago. There's plenty of reports from the 70s that show that certain industries were well aware of the damage being done.
They're not really suggesting a defeatist attitude so much as encouraging you to allocate your resources. You only have so much time, energy, and knowledge. To be blunt, if you're passionate about something then you need to invest the time to become knowledgeable in it.
If these two variables are not aligned then you're actively adding noise to the system and I'd argue that you are making the system less democratic. The world is fucking complex and the devil is always in the details. You may notice that the loudest voices are not the most knowledgeable voices. They will never seek details unless it is to critique their opponents and go no further. The loudest voices are not those seeking truth, they are seeking competition. Seeking truth is a cooperative game, where the main goals are aligned and there is no singular winner. It is positive sum. But the loudest voices are playing games to win, often creating competition where there may not have been before. Usually they claim a game is zero sum, when often it is not.
The point of democracy is to distribute power, and not necessarily uniformly. Our modern industrial and economic worlds runs on specialization. At the very core. This is because these processes are so complex that no individual can obtain mastery over even a significant part of the system. There are no physicists who are experts in all of physics, no chemists who have mastered both organic and physical, no climate scientists who understand all of climate, no engineers who master electrical, mechanical, aero, and civil, there are no master full stack engineers. Do you really think political affairs are any different?
For some reason we pretend we can be experts in even larger domains where experts struggle to obtain expertise in a narrow niche. If systems are chaotic, where small differences are critical, then overconfidence has disastrous consequences.
If these two variables are not aligned then you're actively adding noise to the system and I'd argue that you are making the system less democratic. The world is fucking complex and the devil is always in the details. You may notice that the loudest voices are not the most knowledgeable voices. They will never seek details unless it is to critique their opponents and go no further. The loudest voices are not those seeking truth, they are seeking competition. Seeking truth is a cooperative game, where the main goals are aligned and there is no singular winner. It is positive sum. But the loudest voices are playing games to win, often creating competition where there may not have been before. Usually they claim a game is zero sum, when often it is not.
The point of democracy is to distribute power, and not necessarily uniformly. Our modern industrial and economic worlds runs on specialization. At the very core. This is because these processes are so complex that no individual can obtain mastery over even a significant part of the system. There are no physicists who are experts in all of physics, no chemists who have mastered both organic and physical, no climate scientists who understand all of climate, no engineers who master electrical, mechanical, aero, and civil, there are no master full stack engineers. Do you really think political affairs are any different?
For some reason we pretend we can be experts in even larger domains where experts struggle to obtain expertise in a narrow niche. If systems are chaotic, where small differences are critical, then overconfidence has disastrous consequences.
It's good to talk about things but it's not good to parrot things you can't understand.
No one "understands" it fully but it doesn't mean no one should talk about it. People raise the noise about climate change not because they have magic superhuman ability to see exact future (no one has) but because with what they know from various sciences it looks like things are headed in the bad direction.
Man... this is the most fatalist comment I've read in a while but I suspect your prescription to the problem is the correct one.
I'm sorry I don't have anything better on this. There is this fantastic interview of Ray Anderson, the late CEO of 'Interface' (modular carpets) where he describes vividly the kind of damage that industry is wreaking on the planet and what they are trying to do about it and it's depressing that for all that power and insight he managed to do preciously little:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzOwP0phUis
At that level you can make some change that moves the needle. At the low-on-the-totempole level you're not going to be able to do much of anything without dedicating your life to it. Greta Thunberg comes to mind, though I'm not even sure if she is effective though maybe she'll inspire the next generation. Anything else is a token feel good thing that will not actually make a difference.
If you look at COVID and our collective response and realize the magnitude of that challenge versus climate change then the only valid conclusion is that we're in for a very rough ride, just how rough is the open question, possibly rougher than I can imagine hopefully less so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzOwP0phUis
At that level you can make some change that moves the needle. At the low-on-the-totempole level you're not going to be able to do much of anything without dedicating your life to it. Greta Thunberg comes to mind, though I'm not even sure if she is effective though maybe she'll inspire the next generation. Anything else is a token feel good thing that will not actually make a difference.
If you look at COVID and our collective response and realize the magnitude of that challenge versus climate change then the only valid conclusion is that we're in for a very rough ride, just how rough is the open question, possibly rougher than I can imagine hopefully less so.
Which the irony here is that I think a lot of the rough ride is due to people caring too much. Most of the fighting is due to non-experts having high confidence in their understanding of the highly complex phenomena fighting with similar people with just different misunderstandings. This fighting just adds additional noise to the system and results in it being even more difficult to formulate effective solutions.
It's kinda an odd characteristic that passion for a subject doesn't strongly correlate with the desire to become more knowledgeable in that subject. It's definitely there for all those that do become experts, but there's a large number of experts with high passion too. I suspect that it is partially due to our desire of wanting to know everything and believing that lack of knowledge is a blemish. To me this feels odd, it is like being upset you bought a puzzle that wasn't already assembled, a videogame that wasn't already beaten, or a book that wasn't already read.
It's kinda an odd characteristic that passion for a subject doesn't strongly correlate with the desire to become more knowledgeable in that subject. It's definitely there for all those that do become experts, but there's a large number of experts with high passion too. I suspect that it is partially due to our desire of wanting to know everything and believing that lack of knowledge is a blemish. To me this feels odd, it is like being upset you bought a puzzle that wasn't already assembled, a videogame that wasn't already beaten, or a book that wasn't already read.
One of my kids observed that knowing all the stuff he learns in school doesn't seem to make him any happier, but does wonders for seeing how fucked up everything is. It would be nice if I found a way to show him that knowing lots of stuff can help in positive ways as well but for now he has me cornered.
Sounds like a smart kid. I'm not sure if the world is fucked up or we just are misinterpreting it. If I can sympathize with fucked up characters in books and movies, maybe it just means I don't know enough about those people/things that I consider evil or fucked up. There's a lot of variables at play, many hidden, creating a fundamentally stochastic reality. A friend told me a saying once, and I don't think he realized how much it would impact my life.
> The harder I work, the luckier I get.
I definitely went through an existential crisis where I found that the world was dominated by noise (with complexity being just one form). But what I found meaningful from this simple saying is that if life is composed of stochastic events, I better be ready to seize upon the opportunities when and if they emerge.
Plus, I've always enjoyed learning. Not for power or any actual gain. But the same way one finds enjoyment in solving a puzzle or playing any game. Isn't that enough? I just see that the noise and complexity I can see just indicates what level of the game I'm on. Games wouldn't be fun if they didn't get more challenging as you progressed :)
I don't know if this helps. Maybe this is that random event to seize upon or maybe it is just more noise. But that's the world I guess, and there's a certain beauty to that.
> The harder I work, the luckier I get.
I definitely went through an existential crisis where I found that the world was dominated by noise (with complexity being just one form). But what I found meaningful from this simple saying is that if life is composed of stochastic events, I better be ready to seize upon the opportunities when and if they emerge.
Plus, I've always enjoyed learning. Not for power or any actual gain. But the same way one finds enjoyment in solving a puzzle or playing any game. Isn't that enough? I just see that the noise and complexity I can see just indicates what level of the game I'm on. Games wouldn't be fun if they didn't get more challenging as you progressed :)
I don't know if this helps. Maybe this is that random event to seize upon or maybe it is just more noise. But that's the world I guess, and there's a certain beauty to that.
Food for thought, thank you very much. We seem to have a lot in common when it comes to learning for learning's sake.
Truly, though, if you were to honestly treat it like the weather, it would determine your housing/infrastructure with year-round effects. The weather for my region doesn't demand A-frames to support massive amounts snow - if one of our contractors put up a house in North Dakota in June while only considering the near-term weather, the flat roof would collapse in the long term. Have fun with your purchase of a snowplow because tomorrow's weather calls for snow.
I'd advise that one make decisions only for the time they are willing to address their effects. If you don't consider 20 years out, leave the decision-making about 20-year-goals to those who do, and both support and comply with their choice when they enforce things like EVs, agricultural reform, and other environmentally supportive/regenerative actions. Otherwise your default (non-compliance with and distrust of the "weathermen") is a decision to effectively subvert the efforts of those who do care and are informed. Your pronouncement here is effectively proselytizing nihilism. Such cultural disease is probably better kept to yourself.
[deleted]
> Question for the community: how does one navigate such uncertainty?
Not climate scientist, but researcher in ML (another highly hyped and arguably more noisy field).
After Bourbon, the hard truth is expertise + don't.
Unfortunately journals/conferences/venues are an extremely noisy mechanism which in general aren't realistically much better than arxiv (at least over here). Peer review isn't journals/conferences, it is peers reading and evaluating the works. Reviewers are doing a service and often not giving a work significant time as they got other stuff to do. The only real way to know if a paper is valid or not is to be an expert in the subject matter (more focused than the field) and to read it __and the code__. All too often it is a nuanced point that is the crux of a paper, and would be entirely missed if you're not deep in that subcommunity. I know this answer sucks, but that's what it is.
Fwiw, I wouldn't realistically change your strategy as a layman. It's probably the best you got. Maybe only thing is don't think "journal publication == 100% true" but rather "journal publication == probably right." The process is noisy and there's no way around this.
Not climate scientist, but researcher in ML (another highly hyped and arguably more noisy field).
After Bourbon, the hard truth is expertise + don't.
Unfortunately journals/conferences/venues are an extremely noisy mechanism which in general aren't realistically much better than arxiv (at least over here). Peer review isn't journals/conferences, it is peers reading and evaluating the works. Reviewers are doing a service and often not giving a work significant time as they got other stuff to do. The only real way to know if a paper is valid or not is to be an expert in the subject matter (more focused than the field) and to read it __and the code__. All too often it is a nuanced point that is the crux of a paper, and would be entirely missed if you're not deep in that subcommunity. I know this answer sucks, but that's what it is.
Fwiw, I wouldn't realistically change your strategy as a layman. It's probably the best you got. Maybe only thing is don't think "journal publication == 100% true" but rather "journal publication == probably right." The process is noisy and there's no way around this.
Can you explain what Bourbon is? People are making one-off references to it but I can't find a search query that results in anything relevant to climate or scientific scandals
He's saying to pour yourself a stiff drink ;-)
I wasn't so sure, there's 3 comments mentioning it and 2 mis-capitalize it in a context where it could be a proper noun...but I'm leaning you're correct
sigspec was one of the first responses and left the single word as a joke. As in have a stiff drink, because you're fucked. Because my answer was that the OP was probably performing an optimal strategy given their constraints. Sure, they could do better by becoming a climate researcher, but that's not really a reasonable ask.
Side note: I often say that you know when the physics undergrads start quantum mechanics because they all become alcoholics. The joke here (which has a lot of truth to it btw) is that your intuitive framework breaks down and stops helping you, so you suck it up, drink, and just trust the math. Truthfully, for any study, once you hit a sufficient level, this kinda ends up being true. You get introduced to concepts at a simple and abstracted level, which seems sufficient for modeling the world (often this is what you learn in undergrad domains, not just physics). But once you get to enough expertise you find that what seemed simple before simply gets dominated by the nuances and complexities of the system. Truth is that if anyone is trying to convince you that something is simple (especially yourself), then they are trying to deceive you -- intentionally or unintentionally (often fooled themselves). There's a reason you'll find huge books on how to pick the best screw, o-ring, or whatever seemingly simple thing.
I guess it wouldn't be a clique if it wasn't well known but people fail to internalize it: The devil is in the details.
Side note: I often say that you know when the physics undergrads start quantum mechanics because they all become alcoholics. The joke here (which has a lot of truth to it btw) is that your intuitive framework breaks down and stops helping you, so you suck it up, drink, and just trust the math. Truthfully, for any study, once you hit a sufficient level, this kinda ends up being true. You get introduced to concepts at a simple and abstracted level, which seems sufficient for modeling the world (often this is what you learn in undergrad domains, not just physics). But once you get to enough expertise you find that what seemed simple before simply gets dominated by the nuances and complexities of the system. Truth is that if anyone is trying to convince you that something is simple (especially yourself), then they are trying to deceive you -- intentionally or unintentionally (often fooled themselves). There's a reason you'll find huge books on how to pick the best screw, o-ring, or whatever seemingly simple thing.
I guess it wouldn't be a clique if it wasn't well known but people fail to internalize it: The devil is in the details.
Is the hard truth different before bourbon, then? (tongue firmly in cheek)
Bourbon just helps you swallow the hard truth. Maybe calms you down a bit too.
[deleted]
To me this is the great utility of the IPCC reports. If you look at the full report you can find subsections on many aspects of climate change and a discussion of the state of the field complete with citations compiled by an expert.
How would a layperson like myself judge what's in the IPCC report? The predictions are so dramatic that we have to act now and can't wait and see how it turns out. How is it different from this submission here?
When you frame it that way, your question is "how can $NONEXPERTS confirm $EXPERTS"
First and foremost: read.
Second: don't demand certitude and table the idea that there's a universal judgement. Think: am I asking for an up/down vote on a conversation, or on an assertion?
Uncertainty can't always be driven down to 0. People usually expect this from other fields and yet understand when it is silly in their own field. (imagine: climate scientist forum noting cosmic rays, asking how any system can possibly be secure given memory safety causes security issues, and cosmic rays can flip memory bits, then hand-wringing about how they can even figure out what software research to trust)
This thread is itself a good example: OP has no issue with the research, or type of research, or anything, just is concerned how laypeople might believe it is certain and confirmed because it is in Nature. The paper itself makes no such claim, as the OP goes to great lengths to explain (c.f. it is statistical model)
First and foremost: read.
Second: don't demand certitude and table the idea that there's a universal judgement. Think: am I asking for an up/down vote on a conversation, or on an assertion?
Uncertainty can't always be driven down to 0. People usually expect this from other fields and yet understand when it is silly in their own field. (imagine: climate scientist forum noting cosmic rays, asking how any system can possibly be secure given memory safety causes security issues, and cosmic rays can flip memory bits, then hand-wringing about how they can even figure out what software research to trust)
This thread is itself a good example: OP has no issue with the research, or type of research, or anything, just is concerned how laypeople might believe it is certain and confirmed because it is in Nature. The paper itself makes no such claim, as the OP goes to great lengths to explain (c.f. it is statistical model)
I think if you read the full IPCC report you will see they are far from dramatic. Often news articles on the reports include calls to action (which I am all for given the path we are on). I believe the IPCC may also issue a statement about the report as a whole on release. However, if you read subsections of the full report you will see each domain specialist assign low medium or high confidence to each potential climate outcome. They also include useful descriptions of the physical mechanisms behind many climate phenomenon
There is a great podcast that goes through the whole IPCC report in something like 70 episodes. It's in german though, so not quiet sure how helpfull it could be for you, but maybee there is something similar in english.
The podcast mentioned is "https://dasklima.podigee.io/" . Discussion about IPCC goes on until episode 77, after that they discuss some broader topics.
I happen to speak German, thank you!
Dramatic? The IPCC is perhaps the driest bit of prose there is.
Speaking of which, I recently saw this: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-... which is kinda a review of what IPCC report says about "extreme weather".
For me, this summary is a lot different than the way I see this aspect talked about in the media (and on Twitter, etc) even by climate scientists.
For me, this summary is a lot different than the way I see this aspect talked about in the media (and on Twitter, etc) even by climate scientists.
This article isn't great. He says "the IPCC says we won't see extreme weather until 2100.... (except for extreme heat and cold which the IPCC says is already here)"
Okay? A lot of the discourse is explicitly about the heat and cold.
Okay? A lot of the discourse is explicitly about the heat and cold.
But every hurricane season we hear it, it’s been talked about with the Canadian wildfires, locally in Minnesota they’ve been blaming our recent droughts on it, etc.
It wasn’t all that long ago that interviewed climate scientists would say that you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do. I feel like I hear it every other time I tune in to NPR.
It wasn’t all that long ago that interviewed climate scientists would say that you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do. I feel like I hear it every other time I tune in to NPR.
I'm definitely not an expert, but my understanding is that it is impossible to point to one single event and say climate change is responsible for that event. Weather is dynamic, you know? But climate change does account for there being more events (more hurricanes, more days of record breaking temperatures, more wildfires, etc). And as someone on the west coast who now assumes there will be at least one or two weeks of miserable wildfire smoke every summer, I think that impact is worth taking seriously today.
you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do
"constantly"? It's ironic that you put these two statements together like they somehow prove your point, while you're actually undermining your own position. Here's what the climate scientists have been saying: "you can't attribute individual weather events directly to climate change. However, climate change will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events occurring".
So, if the media (note, not scientists) is "constantly" talking about extreme weather events, that does seem to prove that extreme weather events are happening more often, right? Which kinda confirms what the scientists were predicting all along? It's not the individual events that prove climate change: it is the pattern of "constant" extreme weather events.
"constantly"? It's ironic that you put these two statements together like they somehow prove your point, while you're actually undermining your own position. Here's what the climate scientists have been saying: "you can't attribute individual weather events directly to climate change. However, climate change will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events occurring".
So, if the media (note, not scientists) is "constantly" talking about extreme weather events, that does seem to prove that extreme weather events are happening more often, right? Which kinda confirms what the scientists were predicting all along? It's not the individual events that prove climate change: it is the pattern of "constant" extreme weather events.
> Instead I use “appears in a credible journal” as a basis for trusting the apparent direction of travel
Using that is like using 'Someone raised a concern in a meeting' as a basis for believing something.
Anyone can raise a concern, or publish a paper. What matters is whether or not other people are convinced by the paper. Consensus.
Use 'scientific consensus' as your weather-vane. (PS. The scientific consensus on climate change is 'things aren't looking great, we need to turn the bus around, we aren't turning the bus around'.)
... Or go learn and become an expert in the field for yourself. It should only take ~20,000 hours of making a lot of mistakes along the way.
Using that is like using 'Someone raised a concern in a meeting' as a basis for believing something.
Anyone can raise a concern, or publish a paper. What matters is whether or not other people are convinced by the paper. Consensus.
Use 'scientific consensus' as your weather-vane. (PS. The scientific consensus on climate change is 'things aren't looking great, we need to turn the bus around, we aren't turning the bus around'.)
... Or go learn and become an expert in the field for yourself. It should only take ~20,000 hours of making a lot of mistakes along the way.
Welcoming nuance, reading the whole thing, and not venturing conclusions as a laymen.
This thread is a good example: the person you're replying to isn't saying it's bad work, or that the work claims certitude. In fact, it disclaims it, it's a statistical model. It's just that pop "scientists" may overestimate it its in Nature and people don't read.
This thread is a good example: the person you're replying to isn't saying it's bad work, or that the work claims certitude. In fact, it disclaims it, it's a statistical model. It's just that pop "scientists" may overestimate it its in Nature and people don't read.
> Question for the community: how does one navigate such uncertainty?
This is one of the key reasons I come to HN. Yes, for the news, obviously ;) But mostly for the various insights on that news.
This is one of the key reasons I come to HN. Yes, for the news, obviously ;) But mostly for the various insights on that news.
FWIW and IME: not by trying to reduce the uncertainty through study.
I spent a few years studying climate models. I have lots of background in mathematical modeling and numerics, but not climate per se, so this was a big undertaking but possible. I have to admit that -- although I can now read and understand papers better -- it hasn't been particularly illuminating.
The global climate is changing. The long-term impact of these changes is difficult to know, particularly because there are many plausible bifurcation points. Beyond some basics, the TL;DR is "we just don't know exactly what will or won't happen, or when, but it's probably not going to be good for most people on the planet and things are probably going to start getting bad within 1-2 hundred years".
In my mind it's really just a case where being a conservative is the best approach.
I spent a few years studying climate models. I have lots of background in mathematical modeling and numerics, but not climate per se, so this was a big undertaking but possible. I have to admit that -- although I can now read and understand papers better -- it hasn't been particularly illuminating.
The global climate is changing. The long-term impact of these changes is difficult to know, particularly because there are many plausible bifurcation points. Beyond some basics, the TL;DR is "we just don't know exactly what will or won't happen, or when, but it's probably not going to be good for most people on the planet and things are probably going to start getting bad within 1-2 hundred years".
In my mind it's really just a case where being a conservative is the best approach.
> things are probably going to start getting bad within 1-2 hundred years
That's a very strange take when we're seeing serious consequences of climate change now.
That's a very strange take when we're seeing serious consequences of climate change now.
Look at it this way. The link to the article appeared on HN 15:59:54. braaannigan's comment appeared on 17:07:56. Thus, it took this HN user not more than 60 minutes to conclude that this article is of low quality and should not have been published in Nature. Nature's editors, the article's authors, and its peer reviewers disagree. braaannigan is anonymous and do not put their reputation on the line. Nature's editors and the article's authors do. If appeal to authority is a valid argument then I believe one side wins this debate in a landslide.
The article was posted to arxiv in April. Believe it or not, >99% of the time I see a paper from my field on HN I've read it months before it's posted, and sometimes been aware of the research for up to a year before it's posted.
Also, the criticism is primarily a comment on methods (stats vs physical models) which can be based on lots of consideration and experience outside the context of any particular paper.
E.g. I can tell you that you've probably used the wrong optimization algorithm for particular task without spending much more than an hour glancing through your problem formulation and results. Doing that without the benefit of decades of experience would require weeks or months, but with experience I can make that determination quite quickly given a detailed write-up.
(FWIW: I think dynamical physics-based models are probably over-emphasized in climate science consensus, but I'm admittedly a complete novice whose opinion you shouldn't trust.)
Also, the criticism is primarily a comment on methods (stats vs physical models) which can be based on lots of consideration and experience outside the context of any particular paper.
E.g. I can tell you that you've probably used the wrong optimization algorithm for particular task without spending much more than an hour glancing through your problem formulation and results. Doing that without the benefit of decades of experience would require weeks or months, but with experience I can make that determination quite quickly given a detailed write-up.
(FWIW: I think dynamical physics-based models are probably over-emphasized in climate science consensus, but I'm admittedly a complete novice whose opinion you shouldn't trust.)
> If appeal to authority is a valid argument
Well, thankfully it is not.
There's no need for one side or the other to "win," especially at this point. Instead, likely, debate will continue until a more-nuanced view is better understood and accurately disseminated.
(Not necessarily a view "in the middle." Sometimes one side is just Right, Full Stop. But a more-nuanced view when there's strong disagreement on both sides is usually helpful for more people to understand _why_ there's disagreement.)
Well, thankfully it is not.
There's no need for one side or the other to "win," especially at this point. Instead, likely, debate will continue until a more-nuanced view is better understood and accurately disseminated.
(Not necessarily a view "in the middle." Sometimes one side is just Right, Full Stop. But a more-nuanced view when there's strong disagreement on both sides is usually helpful for more people to understand _why_ there's disagreement.)
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy where the authority is not actually an authority.
Mother nature decides such things ultimately, including whether the actions your and your Experts take are enough to carry the day.
Maybe best not to put all your eggs in one basket, or bet your future on one strategy!
Maybe best not to put all your eggs in one basket, or bet your future on one strategy!
Liam may be anonymous to you but he's not to me, he's also not anonymous on HN (he posts under a very close and obvious variation of his real name here) but apparently doesn't go out of his way to 'build a brand' or 'attract a following'. He really is what he says he is. Maybe tone it down a bit, especially because you are anonymous and apparently believe that is important?
critical thinking skills, don't believe everything that you see, perform your own independent investigation of truth.
> critical thinking skills, don't believe everything that you see, perform your own independent investigation of truth.
How would one possibly do that here?
How would one possibly do that here?
Indeed. Even with an adjacent PhD and a decade of adjacent research experience, it took me years to learn the very basics of climate modeling. And there's no way I can keep up with the literature.
Also, I don't have access to a supercomputer (ok, well, I do, but I can't both keep my day job and also use it for re-running climate models when I have a question I want to ask myself about them).
People say "critical thinking" and "do your own research" a lot, and I always wonder what the fuck they think "research" means. Apparently not what I think it means! Or perhaps they do not need sleep, do not have to work for a living, do not have family, have access to huge teams of assistants, and own a world-class supercomputer to help satiate their skepticism, in which case, good for them :)
Also, I don't have access to a supercomputer (ok, well, I do, but I can't both keep my day job and also use it for re-running climate models when I have a question I want to ask myself about them).
People say "critical thinking" and "do your own research" a lot, and I always wonder what the fuck they think "research" means. Apparently not what I think it means! Or perhaps they do not need sleep, do not have to work for a living, do not have family, have access to huge teams of assistants, and own a world-class supercomputer to help satiate their skepticism, in which case, good for them :)
Personally, I just use my instincts. If my instincts are wrong, well, there's always another lifeform that will evolve someday, even if that's billions of years from now.
Hopefully they will be smarter than myself. If not, a few billion more years and we may get another shot...
Hopefully they will be smarter than myself. If not, a few billion more years and we may get another shot...
Based on my initial reading so far this seems like the best take.
However, I’ll offer an alternative perspective.
This paper identifies that IPCC does not expect a collapse in the 21st-century. That alone should be our largest biasing factor when we’re asking - from a time horizon perspective - what should we be doing?
So then, why now? I think it’s compelling that they identified two preconditions for a collapse they have been monitoring, and now are indicating that we are on the trajectory towards collapse, given what we were looking for for indications and warning.
As a former military officer, the key thing that you get from intelligence is long-term forecasting and indications and warnings for negative or dangerous actions by your adversaries and risk-taking by your allies.
So following that same logic, then if two of the largest indications and warnings for a future energy transfer collapse/flip scenario, based on the best modeling we have today, are indicating that we are on that trajectory, then it seems appropriate for the most well respected journal to relay that fact.
However, I’ll offer an alternative perspective.
This paper identifies that IPCC does not expect a collapse in the 21st-century. That alone should be our largest biasing factor when we’re asking - from a time horizon perspective - what should we be doing?
So then, why now? I think it’s compelling that they identified two preconditions for a collapse they have been monitoring, and now are indicating that we are on the trajectory towards collapse, given what we were looking for for indications and warning.
As a former military officer, the key thing that you get from intelligence is long-term forecasting and indications and warnings for negative or dangerous actions by your adversaries and risk-taking by your allies.
So following that same logic, then if two of the largest indications and warnings for a future energy transfer collapse/flip scenario, based on the best modeling we have today, are indicating that we are on that trajectory, then it seems appropriate for the most well respected journal to relay that fact.
As a former military officer, does it concern you at all that in this case if the time comes that we must mobilize, like yesterday, instead of issuing orders and having them followed, we may have a 4 to 12 year lag as the orders filter through our "democracy", which is composed largely of a bunch of children arguing over their respective fantasy land realities (as illustrated among our best and brightest here every time the topic comes up)?
I feel like "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is in play here in a very big way.
I feel like "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is in play here in a very big way.
At least in the US the military works at the speed of congressional appropriations.
If Congress and the President agree to what you consider a “4-6 year lag” in whatever response we take then, the best Service and COCOM chiefs can do is give advice and then execute orders.
Call and vote for your congressperson if you want lasting change in the use of the DoD.
If Congress and the President agree to what you consider a “4-6 year lag” in whatever response we take then, the best Service and COCOM chiefs can do is give advice and then execute orders.
Call and vote for your congressperson if you want lasting change in the use of the DoD.
What if our democracy is the weakest link in the chain and as it is guarantees failure?
Does the fact that for some reason most humans literally cannot even contemplate this idea not seem like a bit of a risky situation to ignore, while representing/perceiving that we are thinking rationally??
To me, this is a recipe for disaster, the blind leading the blind.
Does the fact that for some reason most humans literally cannot even contemplate this idea not seem like a bit of a risky situation to ignore, while representing/perceiving that we are thinking rationally??
To me, this is a recipe for disaster, the blind leading the blind.
The publication is in Nature Communications, which is a bit of a different (lesser) beast than Nature.
Sorry, Nature can't try to pull the Buzzfeed/Buzzfeed News schtick.
They can't have a clickbait journal where they use their name to lend it credibility it would otherwise not have, and then claim no this isn't "Nature" and try to keep their credibility.
They can't have a clickbait journal where they use their name to lend it credibility it would otherwise not have, and then claim no this isn't "Nature" and try to keep their credibility.
Thanks for pointing this out, I missed that
This is becoming a perennial refrain in HN stories based on scientific papers. ("Oh, wait, this dubious study or lazy meta-analysis isn't really appearing in Nature, it's some other publication to which Nature has whored out their name and credibility.")
It sounds like the 150-year-old scientific journal of record has been taken over by private equity, or by MBAs with KPIs to optimize.
It sounds like the 150-year-old scientific journal of record has been taken over by private equity, or by MBAs with KPIs to optimize.
Hackers news literally exists to perform lazy meta analysis
Very very poignant comment here.
Like TedX diluted TED.
The journal is Nature Communications, which has a much lower impact factor than Nature. Many of the papers rejected from Nature are encouraged to be automatically transferred to Nature Communications. One nice thing about Nature Communications is that one can read the reviews: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs414...
This is excellent. Thank you for sharing. I had no idea you could read the reviewers notes and feedback
> physical models are the most reliable basis for prediction
Simpler models can yield better predictions than complex ones, even when the complex model is more "realistic". The many tunable parameters and complex feedback loops can increase uncertainty compared to a simple model.
See for example "To explain or to predict?" by Shmueli (2010, https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330)
Simpler models can yield better predictions than complex ones, even when the complex model is more "realistic". The many tunable parameters and complex feedback loops can increase uncertainty compared to a simple model.
See for example "To explain or to predict?" by Shmueli (2010, https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330)
Many of the physical models are of similar complexity to the model in this paper - the sort of analytical model that you run in a few minutes on your laptop, not on a super-computer. It's not a question of complexity it's about whether a statistical model that is not constrained by well-understood constraints is a high-value model
Agreed. Also I'm not here to defend their particular model. Just saying that "physical" does not always equal "better predictions".
Their model equation (1) has 4 parameters. Do you have any papers at hand that model AMOC in a more physically constrained way, with a similar number of tunable parameters?
Their model equation (1) has 4 parameters. Do you have any papers at hand that model AMOC in a more physically constrained way, with a similar number of tunable parameters?
Skepticism on this was called out in WaPo's article on the same subject:
Other experts on the AMOC also cautioned that because the new study doesn’t present new observations of the entire ocean system — instead, it is extrapolating about the future based on past data from a limited region of the Atlantic — its conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
Other experts on the AMOC also cautioned that because the new study doesn’t present new observations of the entire ocean system — instead, it is extrapolating about the future based on past data from a limited region of the Atlantic — its conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
I'm not sure a grain of salt will make much difference here in the ocean :-)
A lot of publicly-published forecasts of climate change have been ridiculously - and I would emphasize hilariously so - conservative on their numbers and predictions. Pretty much every “worst case scenario” morphs into a “best case scenario” over a year or three, before being dropped wholesale for being unrealistically optimistic due to how fast climate change is accelerating.
So can this happen “sooner than expected”, along with the massive raft of climate change outcomes that are cropping up 20, 50, and even 100 years “earlier than expected”?
Let’s just say that if climate change was on the stock exchange, I’d be dumping serious money into its futures. Nothing seems to be truly “off the table” anymore, even the truly outlandish outcomes are becoming terrifyingly prescient.
So can this happen “sooner than expected”, along with the massive raft of climate change outcomes that are cropping up 20, 50, and even 100 years “earlier than expected”?
Let’s just say that if climate change was on the stock exchange, I’d be dumping serious money into its futures. Nothing seems to be truly “off the table” anymore, even the truly outlandish outcomes are becoming terrifyingly prescient.
It's Nature Communications, not Nature itself. Relevant quote:
> If a paper is rejected from one Nature journal, the authors can use an automated manuscript transfer service to submit the paper to Nature Communications via a link sent to them by the editor handling the manuscript.
> If a paper is rejected from one Nature journal, the authors can use an automated manuscript transfer service to submit the paper to Nature Communications via a link sent to them by the editor handling the manuscript.
Indeed, the byline mentions that it is "Open Access"
> Article | Open Access
> Article | Open Access
We've been very surprised as to which studies made it to nature over the past decade. I can't help but conclude that the influence of (politial) bias has been steadily growing over the years. (Fwiw, i'm personally taking the climate change subject extremely serious).
> Fwiw, i'm personally taking the climate change subject extremely serious
It's not worth anything, since the conservative rear guard and even outright deniers say the same thing these days. If you mean to separate yourself from such people, you'll have to put it differently.
It's not worth anything, since the conservative rear guard and even outright deniers say the same thing these days. If you mean to separate yourself from such people, you'll have to put it differently.
I’ve been suggesting we flagellate ourselves in the streets to make sure people know we’re on the right side of history.
The collapse needs to be discussed more. The only way for that discussion to occur is if research is published.
> I've got a background in this field
Would help taking your observations seriously if you provided some credentials, studies published, etc. Otherwise, and of course I say this with all respect, you're just some guy on the internet (spreading FUD, but that's another story)
Would help taking your observations seriously if you provided some credentials, studies published, etc. Otherwise, and of course I say this with all respect, you're just some guy on the internet (spreading FUD, but that's another story)
If it bleeds, it leads.
Electromagnetism as a theory did not work until Maxwell removed a bunch of imaginary pulleys and weights intended to simulate real objects.
Did Einstein rocket off at the speed of light before coming up with relativity?
All those things were later refined as they were the correct cognitive framework with inaccurate physical models behind them.
Did Einstein rocket off at the speed of light before coming up with relativity?
All those things were later refined as they were the correct cognitive framework with inaccurate physical models behind them.
Part of the challenge of this climate information is that it's so bloody complicated. Yes, Nature is doing a scientific write-up, but even reading the abstract all I get is "severe impacts on the climate in the North Atlantic region". What does that mean? Ok, well, why don't I at least look up the AMOC in the first place.
Quick dash over to wikipedia [1] and I find out that...
> The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is part of a global thermohaline circulation in the oceans and is the zonally integrated component of surface and deep currents in the Atlantic Ocean.
While I am not a scientist, I consider myself fairly well-read and not an idiot. But when the first sentence of a Wikipedia article needs an ELI5 translation by ChatGPT... you know you're in for a reading adventure.
(But by the 3rd paragraph Wikipedia has a relatively understandable "what if this goes wrong" breakdown)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
Quick dash over to wikipedia [1] and I find out that...
> The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is part of a global thermohaline circulation in the oceans and is the zonally integrated component of surface and deep currents in the Atlantic Ocean.
While I am not a scientist, I consider myself fairly well-read and not an idiot. But when the first sentence of a Wikipedia article needs an ELI5 translation by ChatGPT... you know you're in for a reading adventure.
(But by the 3rd paragraph Wikipedia has a relatively understandable "what if this goes wrong" breakdown)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
> Predictions based on observations rely on detecting early-warning signals, primarily an increase in variance (loss of resilience) and increased autocorrelation (critical slowing down), which have recently been reported for the AMOC. Here we provide statistical significance and data-driven estimators for the time of tipping. We estimate a collapse of the AMOC to occur around mid-century under the current scenario of future emissions.
The abstract also says that the collapse would impact the north Atlantic region, but in what way? Assuming the prediction is accurate, what changes could we expect to see in that scenario? Wikipedia suggests that temperatures in northern Europe would drop significantly + sea levels would rise, but is that all? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
The abstract also says that the collapse would impact the north Atlantic region, but in what way? Assuming the prediction is accurate, what changes could we expect to see in that scenario? Wikipedia suggests that temperatures in northern Europe would drop significantly + sea levels would rise, but is that all? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
Ireland and Great Britain are at about the same latitude as Labrador in Canada, but benefit from heat transported across the North Atlantic from the Caribbean by warm water. Absent the current that is transporting that warm water, one would expect the GB climate to more closely resemble Labrador’s. In other words, much colder.
The problem is people mix up the overturning part of the AMOC and other overlapping streams.
And while the AMOC is powered quite a bit by water cooling down in the Arctic etc. the other streams are also to a huge degree powered by earth rotation AFIK.
In other words they won't stop, and likely won't slow down that much either. And that is if the AMOC stops instead of just slowing down quite a bit.
E.g. the rotation consisting of Gulf, Canary, N. Equatorial stream and N. Atlantic drift won't stop, but it will reach less far north and potentially colder. Similar for the other "rotations" like that (e.g. Brazil<->Africa) which the overturning stream overlaps with, through some parts might somewhat change their forms and water temperatures.
Or in other word while the absence of the AMOC can cool down GB/Ireland it won't remove all effects.
Expecting similar climate to other (coast) areas on the same latitude is ... not that useful. There are many different ocean current not affected by a stopping overturning current affecting the weather, additional even on coastal areas the wetter isn't always dominated by the ocean climate but can sometimes be largely affected by a constant strong weather front from the country side (both hotter and colder) and in some places that is a common occurrence due to the geography.
It still will likely be ... unpleasant in various ways.
And while the AMOC is powered quite a bit by water cooling down in the Arctic etc. the other streams are also to a huge degree powered by earth rotation AFIK.
In other words they won't stop, and likely won't slow down that much either. And that is if the AMOC stops instead of just slowing down quite a bit.
E.g. the rotation consisting of Gulf, Canary, N. Equatorial stream and N. Atlantic drift won't stop, but it will reach less far north and potentially colder. Similar for the other "rotations" like that (e.g. Brazil<->Africa) which the overturning stream overlaps with, through some parts might somewhat change their forms and water temperatures.
Or in other word while the absence of the AMOC can cool down GB/Ireland it won't remove all effects.
Expecting similar climate to other (coast) areas on the same latitude is ... not that useful. There are many different ocean current not affected by a stopping overturning current affecting the weather, additional even on coastal areas the wetter isn't always dominated by the ocean climate but can sometimes be largely affected by a constant strong weather front from the country side (both hotter and colder) and in some places that is a common occurrence due to the geography.
It still will likely be ... unpleasant in various ways.
not gonna lie, a scenario where a big nasty effect of climate change pastes Europe first might make the powers that be wake up to the impending disaster faster. For the folks with the big money one death in Europe might be more shocking than 100 deaths in India.
The trouble with climate change has always been that by the time you notice the "big nasty effect" it's already too late to prevent catastrophe.
To be clear, it's never too late to improve our fate, but by the time something like the AMOC shutting down destroys Europes climate, you've already signed up for an incredible amount of climate pain. Maybe such an event will wake us up enough to prevent out right extinction, but if this happened the collapse of industrial civilization would be virtually guaranteed.
To be clear, it's never too late to improve our fate, but by the time something like the AMOC shutting down destroys Europes climate, you've already signed up for an incredible amount of climate pain. Maybe such an event will wake us up enough to prevent out right extinction, but if this happened the collapse of industrial civilization would be virtually guaranteed.
Isn't that what this and other papers say - that AMOC is doomed to collapse, it's just a matter of time? I'm not sure I'd equate AMOC collapse to industrial civilization collapsing.
My understanding with climate change is that we have signed up for a lot already, but much more is on the way if we don't make big changes faster. Humanity is a crisis-motivated species. The trouble with climate change is the effects so far have nearly no impact on power. If AMOC were to shut down in 2030 devastating Europe's economy, that could be the wake-up call to everyone to actually stop fossil-burning ourselves to doom for short-term conveniences.
My understanding with climate change is that we have signed up for a lot already, but much more is on the way if we don't make big changes faster. Humanity is a crisis-motivated species. The trouble with climate change is the effects so far have nearly no impact on power. If AMOC were to shut down in 2030 devastating Europe's economy, that could be the wake-up call to everyone to actually stop fossil-burning ourselves to doom for short-term conveniences.
If Europe expends much more energy to deal with cold and food production in the cold not sure that would help the world much.
> Wikipedia suggests that temperatures in northern Europe would drop significantly + sea levels would rise, but is that all?
Depends on the drop and the rise.
Open a world map, and draw parallels passing where large Northern European cities are. [1]
E.g. Canada's Montreal roughly corresponds to Paris.
[1] Or this gif from reddit: https://preview.redd.it/dm7xwsmp3aa81.gif?format=mp4&s=a1673...
Depends on the drop and the rise.
Open a world map, and draw parallels passing where large Northern European cities are. [1]
E.g. Canada's Montreal roughly corresponds to Paris.
[1] Or this gif from reddit: https://preview.redd.it/dm7xwsmp3aa81.gif?format=mp4&s=a1673...
If nothing else, the UK would more closely resemble central Europe, as I understand it - colder winters, hotter summers
Given a full collapse, wouldn't the UK resemble northern Canada?
There is a good way to see the problem in a second
Think about New York, is at 40 degrees N latitude. This means that if NY would be in the Atlantic coast of Europe would fall in Portugal! a little North to Lisbon! (38ºN). Sometimes Is easy to forget that NY is "Southern Europe" league. Southern than the North Coast of Spain.
Now lets see Quebec (53ºN). Well, London is 51ºN. Without the sea current bringing hot tropical water, London should have practically the same climate than Quebec, and 90% of UK is higher than London, so would enjoy the full whole Canadian winter experience.
Think about New York, is at 40 degrees N latitude. This means that if NY would be in the Atlantic coast of Europe would fall in Portugal! a little North to Lisbon! (38ºN). Sometimes Is easy to forget that NY is "Southern Europe" league. Southern than the North Coast of Spain.
Now lets see Quebec (53ºN). Well, London is 51ºN. Without the sea current bringing hot tropical water, London should have practically the same climate than Quebec, and 90% of UK is higher than London, so would enjoy the full whole Canadian winter experience.
But the West Coast of North America is has milder winters than the East Coast, which has milder winters than the center. Shouldn't we expect London to end up with a similar climate as somewhere on the West Coast of Canada at the same latitude?
I think the hard part of this is predicting how the global jet stream and polar vortex winds might change in response to disruption of the Atlantic currents. It already changes for North America in response to the Pacific subtle temperature oscillation we call El Nino / La Nina.
The proximity to the ocean and the general westerly winds of the mid latitudes mean that the west coast gets a moderating marine influence. The cold ocean surface provides us "air conditioning" in summer and yet is also a mild "heater" in winter, helping keep coastal air above freezing temperatures.
But, this general background pattern is regularly disrupted by large high and low pressure systems that wander through the region and give us our weather of storms, cold snaps, and heat waves. These cyclonic systems can both carry a somewhat distinct air mass inside them and also disrupt the normal westerly surface flow. And the jet stream is largely in control of steering these systems, making them track further north or south or even helping them stall out temporarily in their generally eastward course.
The proximity to the ocean and the general westerly winds of the mid latitudes mean that the west coast gets a moderating marine influence. The cold ocean surface provides us "air conditioning" in summer and yet is also a mild "heater" in winter, helping keep coastal air above freezing temperatures.
But, this general background pattern is regularly disrupted by large high and low pressure systems that wander through the region and give us our weather of storms, cold snaps, and heat waves. These cyclonic systems can both carry a somewhat distinct air mass inside them and also disrupt the normal westerly surface flow. And the jet stream is largely in control of steering these systems, making them track further north or south or even helping them stall out temporarily in their generally eastward course.
> Shouldn't we expect ... similar climate as ... West Coast of Canada at same latitude
The Pacific ocean has a similar current to the Gulf stream (AMOC) called the Kuroshio current. If the Gulf stream stops, you should expect the climate in London to be worse than the climate in the center of northern Canada.
The Pacific ocean has a similar current to the Gulf stream (AMOC) called the Kuroshio current. If the Gulf stream stops, you should expect the climate in London to be worse than the climate in the center of northern Canada.
> the Kuroshio current
Everything I've read about the Kuroshio current only talks about its effect on Japan. Does it carry all the way to the North American west coast? Looking at this map[0], you can clearly see the effect of the AMOC on how warm the waters north of Europe are compared to similar latitudes elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be the same relationship between the waters east of the West Coast vs. west of Japan. If anything, the Californian/Oregonian shores appear cooler than the same latitudes in Japan.
[0]: https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global.c.gif
Everything I've read about the Kuroshio current only talks about its effect on Japan. Does it carry all the way to the North American west coast? Looking at this map[0], you can clearly see the effect of the AMOC on how warm the waters north of Europe are compared to similar latitudes elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be the same relationship between the waters east of the West Coast vs. west of Japan. If anything, the Californian/Oregonian shores appear cooler than the same latitudes in Japan.
[0]: https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global.c.gif
Yeah, there is a cold water California current that flows south along the coast, but it is the green band of water in that image (>16.7 c, >62 f) in the higher latitudes (>45" N) that is the warm water circulating. Both the Pacific and Atlantic have similar circulation, with Kuroshio current and the Gulf stream being the respective Western Boundary currents.
Probably Yes, because NY is also warmer that it should be. It receives still part of this warm water before the current turns toward east, plus it has also a heath-island effect created by cars and houses.
So if you remove this effect for both Europe and US, NY should be much colder than it is currently (And most of Europe also).
So if you remove this effect for both Europe and US, NY should be much colder than it is currently (And most of Europe also).
yes, likely even milder than that due to being also an island
but it's complicated, many other ocean currents exist and affect weather and wont stop
and basically only the overturning part of the AMOC is at risk of stopping, which means e.g. the gulf stream won't stop, but will likely become a bit colder and maybe a bit slower too
but it's complicated, many other ocean currents exist and affect weather and wont stop
and basically only the overturning part of the AMOC is at risk of stopping, which means e.g. the gulf stream won't stop, but will likely become a bit colder and maybe a bit slower too
[deleted]
you can't really do comparisons like that as there are other currents which overlap with the overturning one and they won't stop even if that one stops due to them getting a lot of their energy from earth rotation. Through depending on which you look at they might become a bit hotter/colder.
Also geography making it more, or less, likely for constant wind from the inland affecting the wetter can also affect the normal expected wetter noticeable.
E.g. UK being a island means there are much less affected by inland wetter moving over to them then many typical Canadian comparison places. (And from-inland wind is the main cause of very hot summer or very cold winter wetter in many places e.g. cold weeks in north Germany, or e.g. the main source of Blizzards in the US).
So IMHO comparisons like "this city is on the same latitude and also on the cost so it will have similar weather" without the overturning current are pointless (which doesn't mean that they can't happen to be correct, but they as much can happen to be fully wrong).
Also geography making it more, or less, likely for constant wind from the inland affecting the wetter can also affect the normal expected wetter noticeable.
E.g. UK being a island means there are much less affected by inland wetter moving over to them then many typical Canadian comparison places. (And from-inland wind is the main cause of very hot summer or very cold winter wetter in many places e.g. cold weeks in north Germany, or e.g. the main source of Blizzards in the US).
So IMHO comparisons like "this city is on the same latitude and also on the cost so it will have similar weather" without the overturning current are pointless (which doesn't mean that they can't happen to be correct, but they as much can happen to be fully wrong).
I wonder if it would also mean that South America gets hotter, since that stream was carrying heat from SA to Europe
One of the predictions related to global warming that seems to surprise people is that most of the predicted sea level rise is attributed to the thermal expansion of warmer sea water.
So when we think about major changes in how the ocean absorbs and distributes heat, we’re also thinking about how sea level will change in certain areas vs others. If the ocean starts storing a lot more heat around Cuba than Great Britain, Cuba will experience more sea level rise than Great Britain does.
So when we think about major changes in how the ocean absorbs and distributes heat, we’re also thinking about how sea level will change in certain areas vs others. If the ocean starts storing a lot more heat around Cuba than Great Britain, Cuba will experience more sea level rise than Great Britain does.
I don't think that is true. The oceans around Cuba and Great Britain are not separate bodies of water. Volumetric expansion from heating gets flattened out across all connected bodies of water by gravity. You could see differences of geography in how much different lakes expand, though.
This isn’t hypothetical, water temperature is already known to be one factor in deviations of regional sea level from global sea level.
If the conditions that create the heat differential are persistent, the height difference will persist as well.
If the conditions that create the heat differential are persistent, the height difference will persist as well.
I don't know. Consider that a given mass of water would undergo the same gravitational force regardless of whether it is colder/denser/smaller/lower or whether it is hotter/less-dense/larger/higher. Also, as an analogy, consider how much the tidal range [0] varies between areas of the ocean which are absolutely connected as a single body of water. Note particularly the contrast between tides in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean at large on each side of the Iberian Peninsula, even though they are totally connected through the Straight of Gibraltar.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_range
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_range
Last sentence in the Abstract:
"We estimate a collapse of the AMOC to occur around mid-century under the current scenario of future emissions."
"We estimate a collapse of the AMOC to occur around mid-century under the current scenario of future emissions."
Further in the paper
"The mean of the bootstrapped estimates of the tipping time is 〈tc〉 = 2050, and the 95% confidence interval is 2025–2095."
"The mean of the bootstrapped estimates of the tipping time is 〈tc〉 = 2050, and the 95% confidence interval is 2025–2095."
Climate change was sometimes dismissed (or reduced) by saying that’s it an issue for our grandchildren. With those error bars (NOW to +40 years), the immediate nature of the problem and the required response should hit home. Given recent heatwaves, I think nature is starting to hit us with the clue stick. I hope the important people are listening.
Whoof. Those are some spooky error bars.
Especially since almost every "long term" problem seems to be happening in the much shorter term than was originally predicted. Not great!
Some additional useful context from RealClimate: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/what-...
Don't wanna downplay the seriousness of an ocean current collapse, however, articles covering this Danish study seems to grab the "we're gonna die soon"-angle by default. Danish media has found other scientists that do not quite accept the conclusion based on methods used. E.g. this abstract summarized by ChatGPT:
> Climate scientist Steffen Malskær Olsen (specializing in ocean currents at the National Center for Climate Research under DMI) questions the predictions made by Peter Ditlevsen and Susanne Ditlevsen (authors of the study) about a potential collapse of thermohaline circulation. He cites limited data and uncertainty about the correlation between surface temperatures in the Northwest Atlantic and the thermohaline circulation as main concerns. Despite this, he acknowledges the study's importance for demonstrating the potential of advanced mathematical models in predicting climate phenomena. He believes that the IPCC's prediction, which deems a collapse highly unlikely, remains the most reliable. Peter Ditlevsen accepts this uncertainty, arguing they are working with the best data currently available. (https://nyheder.tv2.dk/klima/2023-07-25-danske-forskere-med-...)
> Climate scientist Steffen Malskær Olsen (specializing in ocean currents at the National Center for Climate Research under DMI) questions the predictions made by Peter Ditlevsen and Susanne Ditlevsen (authors of the study) about a potential collapse of thermohaline circulation. He cites limited data and uncertainty about the correlation between surface temperatures in the Northwest Atlantic and the thermohaline circulation as main concerns. Despite this, he acknowledges the study's importance for demonstrating the potential of advanced mathematical models in predicting climate phenomena. He believes that the IPCC's prediction, which deems a collapse highly unlikely, remains the most reliable. Peter Ditlevsen accepts this uncertainty, arguing they are working with the best data currently available. (https://nyheder.tv2.dk/klima/2023-07-25-danske-forskere-med-...)
The worst part of climate change is our response. As world conditions worsen we burn more fossil fuels to simulate cooling/heating. It's a positive feedback loop. The more intense the summers get, and the cold snap of winter, the more fossil fuels we need, which then worsens further worsens the greenhouse gas effect. Then we need more fossil fuels on more days and so on. We aren't striving to consume less but to instead create green illusions and box ourselves in virtual reality or simulations. Maybe the simulation technologists say we are in is actually the one we focus on creating as Earth deteriorates more from our over-consumed lives.
An article from livescience.com that may be worth a read.
TLDR: if slowdown occurs, temperatures could drop by 5C in Europe and North America. What a 5C drop actually looks like they don't say.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/gulf...
TLDR: if slowdown occurs, temperatures could drop by 5C in Europe and North America. What a 5C drop actually looks like they don't say.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/gulf...
I suppose that energy still has to go somewhere. Which place will warm up if Europe and North America cool down?
I'm not a climate scientist but I'd reason that the tropics would experience greater heating resulting from the stagnation of the warm water that would previously circulate. More warm water in the tropics would result in more frequent and more intense hurricanes, so if the AMOC stops then we'll see even more extreme weather records smashed.
Obviously, the Atlantic Ocean closer to the equator.
Pretty sure Europe will heat up, NA will cool down. Currently the Atlantic current brings hot water from the equatorial zones up the US east coast, hence the humidity there. And it brings cool water down from the Arctic to Europe’s west coast, hence the mild non-humid climate there. Reversing the current would reverse that dynamic. It might make Europe less suitable to wine growing, for one, which requires mild cool climates.
The current wouldn't reverse, it would stop or become a lot slower. So cold water would stay in the artic regions and warm water closer to the equator.
I suppose you could compare this to one giant heat pump, circulating a heat source to Europe and North America that makes life livable.
I suppose you could compare this to one giant heat pump, circulating a heat source to Europe and North America that makes life livable.
As I understand it, the warmer the water, the stronger and more powerful the hurricane. So bigger and more hurricane in the mid-latitudes (Caribbean, southern US). Not a good prospect, at all.
Isn't it the opposite? I was under the impression that warm water from the Caribbean / equitorial zones was currently brought over to Western Europe and the UK.
If the AMOC collapses, that heat will presumably stay in the tropics, and North Western Europe will cool.
If the AMOC collapses, that heat will presumably stay in the tropics, and North Western Europe will cool.
> I was under the impression that warm water from the Caribbean / equitorial zones was currently brought over to Western Europe and the UK.
It does after it's gone north along the US East coast yes, then it crosses over to Europe, but it's obviously not as hot anymore having dumped some of its heat into the US and the North Atlantic.
There's no current that goes directly from the equatorial regions straight up to the west coast of Europe.
It does after it's gone north along the US East coast yes, then it crosses over to Europe, but it's obviously not as hot anymore having dumped some of its heat into the US and the North Atlantic.
There's no current that goes directly from the equatorial regions straight up to the west coast of Europe.
How does that 5C drop interact with the rise that we're currently concerned about? (Heatwave, wildfires in the med etc).
I'm guessing it's hopelessly naive to assume it'll just... kinda cancel each other out?
I'm guessing it's hopelessly naive to assume it'll just... kinda cancel each other out?
Erratic is what you can expect (and are already getting)
I'd expect averages might drop in spots, and raise in others, regionally. But the variance will be all over the map. And already is.
Summer heat waves, droughts, intense tropical storms.
And then winters with unusually warm days followed by record lows.
For Northern/Western Europe, with the gulf stream interrupted I'd imagine the could expect a climate closer to what the northeast of the Americas already get: erratic inconstant weather patterns with lower lows than they're used to.
Remember that the northeast and midwest is quite a bit further south than many western & northern European cities, but suffers far more brutal winters.
Here in southern Ontario, we're at the same lattitude as northern Italy or south of France, and our summers can be just as hot, and growing season about as long (and way more humid). ... But in the winter there's episodic lows below -25C, -28C. And I can tell you, you can't easily grow e.g. vitis vinifera grapes with those patterns, and certainly not figs, citrus, etc.
I don't think Europeans are mentally prepared for this, if it's coming.
I'd expect averages might drop in spots, and raise in others, regionally. But the variance will be all over the map. And already is.
Summer heat waves, droughts, intense tropical storms.
And then winters with unusually warm days followed by record lows.
For Northern/Western Europe, with the gulf stream interrupted I'd imagine the could expect a climate closer to what the northeast of the Americas already get: erratic inconstant weather patterns with lower lows than they're used to.
Remember that the northeast and midwest is quite a bit further south than many western & northern European cities, but suffers far more brutal winters.
Here in southern Ontario, we're at the same lattitude as northern Italy or south of France, and our summers can be just as hot, and growing season about as long (and way more humid). ... But in the winter there's episodic lows below -25C, -28C. And I can tell you, you can't easily grow e.g. vitis vinifera grapes with those patterns, and certainly not figs, citrus, etc.
I don't think Europeans are mentally prepared for this, if it's coming.
I would guess we'll see steeper gradients which means more extreme weather.
At this point we can’t even manage 0.1C, how are we going to get 5C?
Over what timeframe?
Edit: a decade.
Edit: a decade.
So if this continues it will result in a 5C drop in temprature across North America and Europe? Am I understanding this correctly.
Which for reference a 5C drop should mean that New York is covered in glacier according to this source https://xkcd.com/1732/
Which for reference a 5C drop should mean that New York is covered in glacier according to this source https://xkcd.com/1732/
NYC was covered in a glacier the last time the global average temperature was 5C cooler.
That's not the same thing as Europe and NA cooling by 5C.
That's not the same thing as Europe and NA cooling by 5C.
While strictly true, that doesn't mean 5C cooling wouldn't eventually result in NYC under ice.
You've misunderstood the source. While temperatures locally will drop by 5C, the global average will not.
That chart shows global averages, ie, the whole world was 5C colder. NY might have been much, much colder than that.
That chart shows global averages, ie, the whole world was 5C colder. NY might have been much, much colder than that.
The Ave Temp of the world is rising and from what I read and hope I understood, nothing will really stop that, all we can do is hope to lessen the temp rise.
So, I think this "5C" drop in East NA and West Europe will be absorbed throughout the world. So those regions will still have higher ave temp then say 1950, just a bit less than the rest of the world.
So, I think this "5C" drop in East NA and West Europe will be absorbed throughout the world. So those regions will still have higher ave temp then say 1950, just a bit less than the rest of the world.
This has been on my mind this past week(and is only lightly tangential)...but would we be able to observe adaptations being made by plants/animals/ecosystems on a timescale of years or decades...to the changing climate?
Humans will be playing mental gymnastics and politics for quite a while before any true changes to move the needle are made...but all other biological things can just make the adaptations...given enough cycles to recognize that something is different(the last 3 seasons were much wetter or colder or hotter, etc...).
I imagine these adaptations could be earlier/later migrations, reproduction habits, hibernation patterns, food gathering. Not necessarily changes in DNA.
Humans will be playing mental gymnastics and politics for quite a while before any true changes to move the needle are made...but all other biological things can just make the adaptations...given enough cycles to recognize that something is different(the last 3 seasons were much wetter or colder or hotter, etc...).
I imagine these adaptations could be earlier/later migrations, reproduction habits, hibernation patterns, food gathering. Not necessarily changes in DNA.
> but all other biological things can just make the adaptations
That only works with enough time, and changes are happening too quickly. Here's how animals have been adapting in just the last 50 years: https://phys.org/news/2022-10-wildlife-populations-plunge-ww...
That only works with enough time, and changes are happening too quickly. Here's how animals have been adapting in just the last 50 years: https://phys.org/news/2022-10-wildlife-populations-plunge-ww...
It's already being observed. Bird migrations have been happening earlier/later, and ranges of birds have increased. I'm sure the same thing is happening for whales / ocean animals.
According to this one[1], they're adapting by leaving later, and flying faster/taking less breaks to make up for the lost time. The result being that less of them make it to the breeding grounds (6% decrease in survival rate).
[1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2023/04/risky-strategy-help...
According to this one[1], they're adapting by leaving later, and flying faster/taking less breaks to make up for the lost time. The result being that less of them make it to the breeding grounds (6% decrease in survival rate).
[1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2023/04/risky-strategy-help...
Migration in terrestrial animals has been blocked. By us. Nobody expects reindeer being allowed to pass the Holidays in France. Birds can fly. European terrestrial big mammals used to have extensive migrations like those in Africa. Not possible anymore with all the cities, agriculture and highways.
This article makes no mention of and has me wondering if this model contemplates undersea hydrate and permafrost methane release and its effects on the climate slope? Or is it limited to what's already taken place and excluding potential accellerant events?
So, the current stops and things get colder in Europe, but they have been having serious heat wave issues each summer. Will things be worse in the winters, but better in the summers if the current did stop?
The climate is an extremely complicated system. The first order effect of AMOC collapse might be cooler European summers, but eventual build-up of ice could effect atmospheric systems leading to hotter summers.
Of course, more or less comfortable summers might not matter much with half of Europe starving to death from crop failure.
Of course, more or less comfortable summers might not matter much with half of Europe starving to death from crop failure.
Probably worse than the sunbathing conditions changing: some crops that can currently be grown in, say, Scotland, wouldn't grow there any longer.
Unlocked WaPo article for the lay person https://wapo.st/3q6uuGQ
[deleted]
Time to call Dennis Quaid and get to the NYPL. Is Roland Emmerich available?
So what would the consequences be?
~3-5 degree drop in temperature at the coasts?
~3-5 degree drop in temperature at the coasts?
Something on the same order of magnitude as projected global temperature increase. That's why you see a white/blue blob in the North Atlantic on maps of temperature trends.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NCDC_temperature_tre...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NCDC_temperature_tre...
youtube has some great visual references for understanding the size and significance of this circulation.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnV9oq_AewI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ETr6X1lOk
suffice to say the implications of this system changing will be felt globally.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnV9oq_AewI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ETr6X1lOk
suffice to say the implications of this system changing will be felt globally.
Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) model simulations suggest that a full collapse is unlikely within the 21st century.
In reference to the cmip model, the article says:
> There are, however, model biases toward overestimated stability of the AMOC, both from tuning to the historic climate record, poor representation of the deep water formation, salinity and glacial runoff.
The article goes in to say why they disagree with the cmip assessment, and rather believe it could happen “around mid century” of the current century.
> There are, however, model biases toward overestimated stability of the AMOC, both from tuning to the historic climate record, poor representation of the deep water formation, salinity and glacial runoff.
The article goes in to say why they disagree with the cmip assessment, and rather believe it could happen “around mid century” of the current century.
Anyone else think that all these predictions are going to happen sooner rather than later in terms of the given prediction range? I can't help but think that a study focussing on a specific area like this one, antarctic sea ice, wildfire predictions etc must only be able to take so many variables into account and that second order effects, third order, fourth order and beyond from other climate subsystems are going to compound and significantly accelerate the timeline.
Oh absolutely. Environmental scientists are very conservative and anti-alarmist with their predictions, and every successive generation of derived data skews towards the more conservative end.
Satire?
No, actually the truth.
The climate change "hype" comes from journalists and editors. The actual research papers are generally very conservative in their estimations, and we've been exceeding the predicted outcomes for decades without making any real changes to improve our situation.
The climate change "hype" comes from journalists and editors. The actual research papers are generally very conservative in their estimations, and we've been exceeding the predicted outcomes for decades without making any real changes to improve our situation.
Sadly, this fact isn't all that well-known.
Given the conservative estimates by scientists have been exceeded, how far of where the more exaggerated takes by journalists?
Even today we have no way of really answering that question. Climate science is generally aiming for a timeline around 2050-2100.
As an analogy - Imagine I told you that if you ate an extra 3000 calories of junk food every day you'd gain a lot of weight. You disagree, for whatever reason, and we carry out the experiment. If a journalist wrote an article on our experiment, and their editor titled it "Ajmurmann about to be 100kg heavier!", when would we be able to tell if they are correct or not? You might be able to make it a week while still being within normal weight fluctuations, but two weeks? Three weeks? A year? And when would we be able to determine the "correctness" of the 100kg number?
Comparing that situation to the Earth's climate - We're still in the first month of the experiment, and shoveling junk food into our metaphorical mouths as fast we can.
As an analogy - Imagine I told you that if you ate an extra 3000 calories of junk food every day you'd gain a lot of weight. You disagree, for whatever reason, and we carry out the experiment. If a journalist wrote an article on our experiment, and their editor titled it "Ajmurmann about to be 100kg heavier!", when would we be able to tell if they are correct or not? You might be able to make it a week while still being within normal weight fluctuations, but two weeks? Three weeks? A year? And when would we be able to determine the "correctness" of the 100kg number?
Comparing that situation to the Earth's climate - We're still in the first month of the experiment, and shoveling junk food into our metaphorical mouths as fast we can.
boondoggle16(1)
No, this has been pretty well documented and reported.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-p...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-p...
You are saying there are no scientists that predicted we would have more sea level rise than we actually do by now?
If you're asking if you can disprove the previous statement by finding a single example of a scientist who predicted wild rises in sea level that haven't happened, the answer is 'no'.
Most scientists can still have historically been overly conservative even if you can find a few that made over the top predictions. It should be perfectly obvious that the presence of a few outliers doesn't invalidate the median of the sample.
Most scientists can still have historically been overly conservative even if you can find a few that made over the top predictions. It should be perfectly obvious that the presence of a few outliers doesn't invalidate the median of the sample.
The IPCC 1990 report predicted that sea level rise would abruptly accelerate from recent historic averages of 1-2mm/yr to 2-7mm/yr, and that is what happened. Satellite altimetry has tracked the central estimate of the 1990 IPCC predictions quite closely.
I'm not trying to disprove anything.
I am trying to understand if there is some chance that this estimate could perhaps be an outlier.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File:Pee...
How can I know whether this prediction will end up being one of the blue line or one of the red line.
I am trying to understand if there is some chance that this estimate could perhaps be an outlier.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File:Pee...
How can I know whether this prediction will end up being one of the blue line or one of the red line.
[deleted]
There are so many tipping points and cascading effects at work that I doubt we have any real understanding of everything that is happening at the macroscopic level, nor even if we did could we battle everything everywhere all at once. I suspect whole swaths of humanity are in for perilous times ahead as the speed of the variances will outpace our collective ability to adapt. As the wizened Tool once sang[0], "Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay".
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CehYA3omb5o
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CehYA3omb5o
Yes the timeline for complete shift is before 2030. NYC weather is already temporarily altered each spring snd early summer with all the cold water from the Greenland melt, and that is just a slight shift away from there in the Gulf stream. When these shifts happen it's in about a dozen years. The last 8 years are the hottest in at least 150 years.
Are we expecting colder, or warmer weather in NY and New England from this? It's not clear to me from reading some of these articles. The expected effect for Northern Europe—that I understand.
Yes. We're not sleepwalking to an uninhabitable dystopia, we're sprinting towards it. We may all be in for some serious problems in 5 to 10 years. I'm not a climate scientist, this is just an uninformed opinion, but everything I'm reading has me very worried.
Me, I am thinking it would be kind of similar to this series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporated_(TV_series)
Majority of people will live in "dystopia lite", and top 1% and people they need ("slaves"?) will live in a better environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporated_(TV_series)
Majority of people will live in "dystopia lite", and top 1% and people they need ("slaves"?) will live in a better environment.
There are challenges to overcome but thinking of the future as dystopia can be counterproductive.
By contrast, acknowledging the dystopian elements of the present is productive and important. They are real and should be addressed for the betterment of mankind.
I just don't think that approach has worked well so far because there often isn't a near term positive vision to go alongside.
It's not an approach, it's step one. To develop answers you must first figure out the questions. I agree merely acknowledging the status quo as bad is not enough, but I fail to see how one would intentionally address issues without first understanding them.
For me, painting a picture of a dystopian world mixes socio-economic and physical predictions of very different forecast quality.
Only if it crushes our spirit. A hopeful counterpoint would be it incentives us to push back (of course easier said than done).
Kind of an irrelevant point to make. We're setting new emissions records, so nothing so far has been productive.
It's exceptionally relevant. Excuse my French, but this constant doomerism is really fucking up the kids.
>"More than half of the 16- to 25-year-olds in the Lancet survey said they believe humanity is doomed. And close to 40 percent said that fears about the future have made them reluctant to have children of their own." [1]
We gave an entire generation anxiety and depression, and it's going to wreak havoc on the fertility rate in a decade or so.
[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/for-gen-z-climate-change-is-a...
>"More than half of the 16- to 25-year-olds in the Lancet survey said they believe humanity is doomed. And close to 40 percent said that fears about the future have made them reluctant to have children of their own." [1]
We gave an entire generation anxiety and depression, and it's going to wreak havoc on the fertility rate in a decade or so.
[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/for-gen-z-climate-change-is-a...
Having a realistic picture of the future is important for long-term life planning. It is not the reporting of the facts that’s fuckin’ up the kids, it’s the facts themselves. Burying your head in the sand is not a valid technique when addressing anxieties, it only makes the inevitable emotional breakdown worse when things come to a head.
It is not a "fact" that climate change will cause our extinction. Point me to one serious report that says that. Your nonstop doomerism has half the kids believing that absolute lie.
>It's exceptionally relevant. Excuse my French, but this constant doomerism is really fucking up the kids.
Think of the children?? Lol, as if the environment being 20 degrees hotter isn't going to "fuck up the kids". The kinds should be worried. Many of them actually are worried and try to do something about it, it's the adults that won't listen or curb behaviors, or in many cases try at all - and at worst they call climate change "a hoax".
>We gave an entire generation anxiety and depression, and it's going to wreak havoc on the fertility rate in a decade or so.
That's a good thing, and is exactly what the planet needs - less humans. Every human added to the planet generates a non-zero amount of carbon. Adding more humans isn't the answer to anything, and it won't make anyone less worried for their future.
Think of the children?? Lol, as if the environment being 20 degrees hotter isn't going to "fuck up the kids". The kinds should be worried. Many of them actually are worried and try to do something about it, it's the adults that won't listen or curb behaviors, or in many cases try at all - and at worst they call climate change "a hoax".
>We gave an entire generation anxiety and depression, and it's going to wreak havoc on the fertility rate in a decade or so.
That's a good thing, and is exactly what the planet needs - less humans. Every human added to the planet generates a non-zero amount of carbon. Adding more humans isn't the answer to anything, and it won't make anyone less worried for their future.
Not doing shit is fucking up the kids.
You need to believe in a very narrow solution corridor for that.
During the cold war you would get similar stats amongst youth over fears of nuclear holocaust. (the risk hasn't gone away).
As a kid in Canada in the 80s I was taught to hide under a desk in case of nukes, and also I was taught about the greenhouse effect and it's relationship to our actions.
As a kid in Canada in the 80s I was taught to hide under a desk in case of nukes, and also I was taught about the greenhouse effect and it's relationship to our actions.
Who is "we"? The US has reduced emissions records while increasing energy output for a number of years now.
Europe has increased both, regardless of their rhetoric. China of course has increased both as well with more coal plants being built.
Most of the reduction in the US is thanks to fracking/nat.gas displacing coal. Which a lot of people are against.
Focusing on nuclear could get us a lot farther in displacing fossil fuels with nuclear as the baseline energy source.
Unfortunately most people just want to nag each other or cat-o’-nine-tails themselves or yell doomsday on loop instead of pushing for things that actually matter.
Europe has increased both, regardless of their rhetoric. China of course has increased both as well with more coal plants being built.
Most of the reduction in the US is thanks to fracking/nat.gas displacing coal. Which a lot of people are against.
Focusing on nuclear could get us a lot farther in displacing fossil fuels with nuclear as the baseline energy source.
Unfortunately most people just want to nag each other or cat-o’-nine-tails themselves or yell doomsday on loop instead of pushing for things that actually matter.
>
Europe has increased both, regardless of their rhetoric.
Meanwhile, back in the real world: https://ip-quarterly.com/sites/default/files/styles/dgap_tea...
Meanwhile, back in the real world: https://ip-quarterly.com/sites/default/files/styles/dgap_tea...
That does not include energy outsourced.
Nor do your US figures. Not least because you failed to present any.
But include them if you can. The graphs look the same.
But include them if you can. The graphs look the same.
What has not worked either so far is ever stronger talk about impending doom.
We might have to contemplate things like geoengineering or whatever but thinking the future is bad is not enough. There has to be a positive vision, too.
We might have to contemplate things like geoengineering or whatever but thinking the future is bad is not enough. There has to be a positive vision, too.
There are plenty of ideas like carbon tax, or more clumsy ones like higher gasoline tax, banning gasoline cars, etc. But no country has sufficient buy-in to do anything that even just is a little inconvenient.
Again, not a positive vision there: initially increasing costs with a very long payoff period (and also having to live through the change already backed into the climate for quite some time)?
That cannot the best we can do - there has to be more we can get out of an energy transition. For example, could have an explicit policy of wanting lower energy costs in high cost places.
That cannot the best we can do - there has to be more we can get out of an energy transition. For example, could have an explicit policy of wanting lower energy costs in high cost places.
I must be misunderstanding what you are looking for, because my understanding of your wish for “lower energy costs in high cost places” sounds the same to me as wishing for everyone to be rich, nobody to be hungry, or for every child to have a pony.
Ponies aside, directionally the right way, I'd say.
Pushing down energy costs is certainly possible when switching energy sources (and also quite visible in data on effective costs per MWh for different technologies), however, it is rarely made an explicit target.
Pushing down energy costs is certainly possible when switching energy sources (and also quite visible in data on effective costs per MWh for different technologies), however, it is rarely made an explicit target.
[deleted]
What's happening right now could still be a very unlikely anomaly and everything may change back to "normal" soon. Or it isn't. Hard to judge for me, I'm not an expert.
Yeah, everything that's been predicted for decades is happening but it could just be a total coincidence.
And if it isn't I'm sure they'll just magically figure out economically viable fusion or spray some aerosols into the atmosphere or somehow just magically fix everything.
I'm sure everything will be fine. That's why I'm not having kids.
/s
And if it isn't I'm sure they'll just magically figure out economically viable fusion or spray some aerosols into the atmosphere or somehow just magically fix everything.
I'm sure everything will be fine. That's why I'm not having kids.
/s
MrOwnPut(3)
Of course, things are always worse than the scientists say. That's why more science is needed. If it wasn't for them, we'd never even know about all the disasters.
There is some P that all those unknown variables act in opposite directions, rather than the same direction.
My guess is it's pretty close to 50% - otherwise they probably would've studied those variables.
But predicting the future is basically impossible. So who knows.
We're all basically guessing.
My guess is it's pretty close to 50% - otherwise they probably would've studied those variables.
But predicting the future is basically impossible. So who knows.
We're all basically guessing.
No, the entire field of climate science is not “basically guessing”. That’s not what scientific study is.
> compound and significantly accelerate the timeline
There's a misconception that the biosphere is a delicate machine that will have a catastrophic internal failure if we don't follow the maintenance bibl^H^H^H^Hmanual, which apparently some experts have access to.
In reality, it is a highly dynamic, self-repairing living organism, which we are a part of. There are at least as many negative feedback loops as positive ones. And we should act to maintain our survival, but doomsaying is not part of that. Doomsaying and fearmongering is about power.
There's a misconception that the biosphere is a delicate machine that will have a catastrophic internal failure if we don't follow the maintenance bibl^H^H^H^Hmanual, which apparently some experts have access to.
In reality, it is a highly dynamic, self-repairing living organism, which we are a part of. There are at least as many negative feedback loops as positive ones. And we should act to maintain our survival, but doomsaying is not part of that. Doomsaying and fearmongering is about power.
> it is a highly dynamic, self-repairing living organism
Organisms are self-repairing (to a certain extent) because they evolved to be so due to natural selection. The Earth as a whole and its climate are not subject to evolutionary pressure (they don’t reproduce) and thus are nothing like that.
Organisms are self-repairing (to a certain extent) because they evolved to be so due to natural selection. The Earth as a whole and its climate are not subject to evolutionary pressure (they don’t reproduce) and thus are nothing like that.
The biosphere is composed of countless suborganisms that have become highly stable over eons of evolutionary pressure.
they are evolved to the current climate. Climate change is the sort of disruptive pressure that will wipe the slate clean and enable new creatures to evolve in the aftermath new normal (see: dinosaurs being replaced by mammals).
That the earth "will survive" is not in question. What is relevant is ensuring the survival of all the creatures that are evolved to the current status quo, which includes us and our current way of life.
That the earth "will survive" is not in question. What is relevant is ensuring the survival of all the creatures that are evolved to the current status quo, which includes us and our current way of life.
Dinosaurs were replaced by a meteor (external event), not by climate mismanagement.
Actually, the earth is subject to evolutionary pressure in a sense.
This is the only planet that supports life (that we know of). That's because it's natural properties endured through billions of years to support life.
It's not exactly an arms race. And it's a different, but similar mechanism. But I think the underlying principles are the same.
In this case, evolution won't look like the earth changing over time. It's more like, there are billions of potential earths out there, and over billions of years, some of them will more subtly change to support life.
So, we may destroy our earth, but that doesn't impair the ability for other earths to evolve. We just may not see it.
This is the only planet that supports life (that we know of). That's because it's natural properties endured through billions of years to support life.
It's not exactly an arms race. And it's a different, but similar mechanism. But I think the underlying principles are the same.
In this case, evolution won't look like the earth changing over time. It's more like, there are billions of potential earths out there, and over billions of years, some of them will more subtly change to support life.
So, we may destroy our earth, but that doesn't impair the ability for other earths to evolve. We just may not see it.
It’s definitely not subject to evolutionary pressure of any sort, because the earth is completely indifferent to life.
I'm not understanding, your statement reads like a non-sequitur to me. Evolution has nothing to do with life.
Evolution has nothing to do with life? What? How would you define evolution then?
Continual selection of entities which survive. For example, sand is the natural evolved substrate of beaches. Shells get ground into sand, anything heavier sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
[deleted]
> Doomsaying and fearmongering is about power.
Because every warning is about power dynamics, and obviously not about things being dangerous. We should get rid of that "can cause death if ingested" cartel that's putting all of those warnings on household products while at it.
Because every warning is about power dynamics, and obviously not about things being dangerous. We should get rid of that "can cause death if ingested" cartel that's putting all of those warnings on household products while at it.
You can't tell the difference between a practical safety advisory and doomsaying about a future rapture?
You're right in that the biosphere will probably be fine.
The question is whether humanity will continue to exist within it.
The question is whether humanity will continue to exist within it.
What would be examples of negative feedback loops of comparable size?
Photosynthesis (carbon) cycle
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151188/a-massive-se...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151188/a-massive-se...
From what I get, yeah, there are several projects that try to use use seaweed on the open ocean to sequester CO2. [1] The yield seems to be mediocre though [2, 3].
For all seaweed that washes up on the shore, the effect reverses: It rots and releases CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. [4]
So if it's a negative feedback loop, then a very weak one, if at all: CO2 emissions cause increased seaweed growth, but increased seaweed coverage doesn't meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas concentrations and in fact can even increase them.
[1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/06/09/245935...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22837-2
[4] https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hcas_etd_all/113/
For all seaweed that washes up on the shore, the effect reverses: It rots and releases CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. [4]
So if it's a negative feedback loop, then a very weak one, if at all: CO2 emissions cause increased seaweed growth, but increased seaweed coverage doesn't meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas concentrations and in fact can even increase them.
[1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/06/09/245935...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22837-2
[4] https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hcas_etd_all/113/
The carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere started off in the atmosphere until it was consumed by organisms that turned into our fossil fuels.
Always some prediction of doom, yet the world keeps spinning and everything is magically always fine.
It's about time we start charging current and former heads of state for dereliction of duty and crimes against humanity.
If the authors of the paper are reading this forum I bet them €10,000 (in 2023 money) that this event (collapse of the AMOC) will not occur this century.
Why stop there? I know plenty of PhD’s who would love to make bets with you about topics in their field - probably easy money for a smart guy like you!
https://xkcd.com/1132/
When the AMOC collapses, they may not have much use for your €10,000.
When the AMOC collapses, they may not have much use for your €10,000.
I bet €10,000 that the government will use this as an excuse to raise our taxes anyway.
In the big picture of the geologic time scale we are at risk for an ice age soon enough. The normal state of the Earth is cold and icy, but still habitable, perhaps barely. No one is sure why the ice ages happen, the most popular theory is that it's caused by perturbations in Earth's orbit.