12 ms·
Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists
- ablation 7y agoA thoroughly disheartening read, as from what we've seen so far, we seem incapable of taking any action, let alone "emergency action" to mitigate this.
- ijiiijji1 7y agoWell, with that frame, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's doable if the people revolt and take control of their government out of the hands of the very rich because those are the people who are standing in the way and killing us.
- m_fayer 7y agoThe only slightly less alarming source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0
- ijiiijji1 7y agoSome emergency carbon capture/ sequestration (CCS) measures might include: - ferrous phytoplankton seeding in open oceans, which requires very little iron - kelp: fertilizing, harvesting, minifying and capturing carbon; the bloom between Mexico and Africa is especially fertile and already washes thousands of tons onto Mexico's beaches per day Rather than plant a few trees and declare "mission accomplished," we should exploit biological processes at scale for permanent BeCCS rather than fall for populist, feel-good, ineffective, half-measures.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- martincollignon 7y agoIf you want to do something as a techie, I would suggest helping out projects like the ones found here: https://github.com/topics/climate-change https://github.com/topics/climate-change I would also suggest joining communities like https://climateaction.tech/ https://climateaction.tech/
- xdze2 7y agoI would like to add this article by Bret Victor: "What can a technologist do about climate change? (A personal view)" http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
- layoric 7y agoThis piece by Brett Victor gave me the push to focus more on what work I do rather than just focusing on personal wealth + career. I ended up being employee #1 at solar forecasting company that is targeting the intermittency problem of renewables. If you’re in a privileged enough situation, I’d highly recommend renewable energy sector, lots of problems where applying technical skill can be extremely impactful.
- perfunctory 7y agoIt took me a very long time (years) to come to terms with the idea that as a techie I can't do anything to help climate. Tech projects is just an excuse to stay in my comfort zone. A very uncomfortable realization.
- aww_dang 7y agoEveryone has power over their consumption choices.
- spodek 7y agoDo you not think about living by your values as a matter of integrity? I don't not steal to stop others from stealing. I don't steal because I don't want to hurt others. If everyone in the world stole, I still wouldn't. If the whole world pollutes, I'm still going to avoid polluting as much as I can.
- perfunctory 7y ago> Do you not think about living by your values as a matter of integrity? I am not sure I understand the context of the question. Does my comment somehow imply I don't?
- LessDmesg 7y agoHuman civilizations have always blossomed in warmer climate. All this scaremongering about global warming ending human civilization and destroying nature is just laughable.
- softwarelimits 7y agoMay I humbly ask: What are your qualifications that enable you to come to this conclusion? I would be very interested in studying your publications - where can I find your analysis? Also it would be really very appreciated if you would like to publish the datasets that lead you to this conclusion - would you like to give us a public repo with the data, so we can check your results? Thank you very much!
- ppf 7y agoThat's not very humble. His assertions are quite basic, and don't need research-grade qualifications to consider. The earth has certainly prehistorically been much warmer, so nature handled it just fine, and it is an interesting question to consider how much more arable land a warmer earth would have.
- softwarelimits 7y agoWould you please like to add data and evidence to add some substance to your words? It is not enough to just "say something" on the internet - you need to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.
- ppf 7y agoThe only assertion I made is that the earth has been much warmer pre-historically, which is a well-known fact and can easily be verified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
- gorpovitch 7y ago
- travisoneill1 7y agoIt seems like they are always saying we are on the brink of some "tipping point." Is there an example of any we have already passed?
- xienze 7y ago> It seems like they are always saying we are on the brink of some "tipping point." Of course, as soon as someone says “that’s it, science has concluded we’re all fucked” no one will see the value in the various money-shifting schemes that have been proposed to save the earth.
- ElonMuskrat 7y agoPretty hard to take climate change reporting seriously. The media is an amplifier that only publishes the most alarmist scientific findings, always blanketed in paragraphs of the editors own apocalyptic interpretation. Climate science is complex. There's a broad spectrum of findings, many are not world-ending, and sometimes disagree on the details.
- wayoutthere 7y agoIf anything, the media understates the threat by mixing in a lot of debunked misinformation. It's hard to take most journalism seriously with the sensationalism bias, but we're already seeing serious negative effects from climate change in the most vulnerable countries. The planet will be a very different place in 50 years.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- goodcanadian 7y agoThat is the whole point of the article. It lists NINE that the authors believe we have already passed.
- gus_massa 7y ago
- perfunctory 7y agoThe scariest thing about climate change is not climate deniers. The scariest thing is people who believe in climate emergency and sit on their butt and do nothing.
- spodek 7y agoI challenged myself to avoid flying for a year, anticipating a year of missing out, losing money, missing family, and all sorts of deprivation and sacrifice. Within a few months I found it one of my best decisions so kept going. I'm now over 4.5 years and may never fly again. But when I talk to people about not flying, or avoiding packaged food, they tell me it's impossible. It's not only possible, it will improve your life as much as dropping sugar or any other addiction. Nobody gets it. They think I'm suffering or privileged when it's the opposite. I explain more in my second TEDx talk http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-the-environment-and-how-to-get-it-right-went-live http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-ge.... Come to think of it, maybe I should stop posting about the joys of not flying since it almost always leads to people responding with thoughtless misunderstandings like: one person's actions don't matter or they need to for work and family. We have to get past these knee-jerk misunderstandings.
- Merrill 7y agoThe article in Nature published as a "Comment" is "Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against" - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 For the ice sheet collapses, it takes 100s or 1000s of years for the effects to be realized. Others such as permafrost melting or Amazon forest disappearance are faster, but time scales are not given. For example - >The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate3. It could add a further 7 m to sea level over thousands of years if it passes a particular threshold. Beyond that, as the elevation of the ice sheet lowers, it melts further, exposing the surface to ever-warmer air. Models suggest that the Greenland ice sheet could be doomed at 1.5 °C of warming3, which could happen as soon as 2030. >Thus, we might already have committed future generations to living with sea-level rises of around 10 m over thousands of years3. But that timescale is still under our control. The rate of melting depends on the magnitude of warming above the tipping point. At 1.5 °C, it could take 10,000 years to unfold3; above 2 °C it could take less than 1,000 years6. Researchers need more observational data to establish whether ice sheets are reaching a tipping point, and require better models constrained by past and present data to resolve how soon and how fast the ice sheets could collapse.
- jezenesklof 7y ago"Scientifically, this provides strong evidence for declaring a state of planetary emergency, to unleash world action that accelerates the path towards a world that can continue evolving on a stable planet." Talk about weasel words "Exiting the fossil fuel economy is unlikely before 2050, but with temperature already at 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperature, it is likely Earth will cross the 1.5°C guardrail by 2040. The authors conclude this alone defines an emergency" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change” likewise Greta Thunberg warned us that according to the UN’s IPCC, (the same one THE Scientists/authors use as a reference on this paper)“we have less than 12 years left in which to correct our mistakes.” and now THE Scientists/authors talk for LIKELY cross the 1.5°C by 2040?
- Lutger 7y agoYes, it's because the impact of putting greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not immediate. Temperatures will continue to rise after the fact. Sea level rise is also much slower, meaning that even if we stop emitting, levels continue to rise for hundreds of years. There's a lot of uncertainty regarding the tipping points. Some scientists fear that if we cross the 2 degrees celcius, we could have a runaway breakdown due to processes such as melted ice heating the ocean much more and permafrost releasing enormous amounts of ghg. We don't know for sure that will happen, but its extremely risky. Some fear we could lock in devastating processes within 12 years (even if they won't happen immediately). Some people think that even if we don't know for sure it'll happen, we should follow the precautionary principle and not take the risk of these extreme events.
- Sharlin 7y agoThe warming is going to continue for decades even after net emissions have dropped to zero. So yes, we're in a real hurry even if the worst effects are still a few decades away. It's not like we can wait UNTIL the 1.5° point is crossed and then magically stop the warming.
- bildung 7y agoAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez never that said herself, she was paraphrasing young voters.
- melonkidney 7y agoOne thing I find encouraging is how many people (particularly young people) are now understanding the seriousness of the climate situation. I would really like to see a public pledge from companies, universities, etc that people who risk their education/career by pushing for real change will not be disadvantaged. If anyone is interested in helping to make this a reality, shoot me an email at together@highestsupport.com
- IanDrake 7y agoYoung people are less on board than you think. They're just young and, frankly, haven't thought their proposition through. Once they realize they won't be shuffled back and forth to Europe on multi-million dollar yachts like their leader, they'll change their tune. In fact, once they realize most proposals require them to become serfs living in unheated hovels while the Lords live in mansions and fly private jets everywhere, they'll probably start to see through the ploy.
- perfunctory 7y ago> they'll change their tune Like this guy for example, right? [My hunger strike could be deadly. But I am willing to risk that for climate action] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/27/hunger-strike-climate-action-extinction-rebellion https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/27/hunger...
- xienze 7y agoYeah get back to us when he’s actually dead, which he won’t be.
- torstenvl 7y agoI'm sorry, but is your argument really that this issue is "n[o]t thought ... through" unless people actually starve themselves over it? That it's all a "ploy" unless this guy actually dies for his cause? I can't quite tell if you're engaging in a non sequitur or moving the goalposts, but your comment doesn't make sense to me in context.
- rayiner 7y agoIt’s important to note that this does not reflect the consensus scientific view: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25... > First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. > I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.” > All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period. Additionally, what is a “planetary state of emergency?” Like global martial law? Because if the tipping point theory is correct, that’s what we have to be talking about, right. It can’t just be a metaphor for “try harder to meet climate change protocols.”
- Lutger 7y agoThe article you link to does not back up your claim about scientific consensus at all. In fact, it's rather biased and bad from that point of view.
- rayiner 7y agoWhat bias? > Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post Additionally, the author cites and links to specific facts in IPCC and UN reports regarding population displacement, sea levels, crop yields, and economic impact.
- ptah 7y agothat is still a blog post containing his personal opinion
- RickJWagner 7y ago" around 10 metres of irreversible sea-level rise. Reducing emissions could slow this process, allowing more time for low-lying populations to move." This seems like hyperbole to me. I'll be glad to buy Hawaiin real estate (at an appropriate discount, of course) to show my sincerity. Any sellers? Seriously, articles of this kind are so over the top that they cause mental fatigue for the issue and de-emphasize climate change.
- chatmasta 7y agoPresident Obama seems to agree with you, as he recently bought a mansion on the beach in Martha’s Vineyard. It’s hard to take climate alarmism seriously when its proponents are taking actions like that.
- arrrg 7y agoBarack Obama is a boring, middle of the road, centrist as hell politician. He is as much a “proponent” of climate change as, say, Angela Merkel. Which is to say, not all that much. He cares a little bit but not that much. Also, he’s rich and for rich people the risk of sea level rise is dramatically lower because they can fight for their little corner either through technological means or they can just move away and it’s not an existential threat to them, no matter what they do.