9 ms·

> (at best we have 10 more years) why does that sound familiar https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372

> (at best we have 10 more years) why does that sound familiar https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 > (1989) A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. > He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

fastball 6y ago
Yeah, at this point climate change has kinda become nuclear fusion – always 10 years away from the end. Not that we shouldn't do anything, because climate change is real. It would just be nice if people could stop being so fire and brimstone about stuff that turns out not to be the end of the world after all (like ACB getting confirmed to SCOTUS). The society that cried wolf.
- dgritsko 6y ago
  I mean, Barrett was sworn in less than a week ago. Regardless of how you feel about her, it's far too early to make any kind of judgement about the implications of her confirmation.
  - fastball 6y ago
    There is no possible way the implications will be anywhere near the level of dire that you'd believe after reading the news articles and seeing people's internet comments and tweets. I mean, people are talking about an overturn of Roe v. Wade, somehow failing to realize that RvW was ruled on by a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage.
    - wycy 6y ago
      The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, and Mississippi's attempt to pass a 15-week abortion ban is just the start.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.
        wycy 6y ago
        The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
        fastball 6y ago
        Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
  - themaninthedark 6y ago
    I'll bite, how about all the dire predictions that Trump would start a war with North Korea? Or that he was going to crash the economy right away? I am someone who does believe that we are having an impact on the global temp. and I do think we need to do something about it. Screaming the sky is falling is not helping. Stonewalling any other source of power except Solar and Wind is not helping. Suggesting that we cut back farmland drastically, in a move that would kill a bunch of people is not helping. Telling people to give up cars and planes is not helping. We need to work to come up with solutions that will work for everyone, not just San Fransisco, New York, Amsterdam. We need solutions for Valdosta, GA, Snowshoe, WV, Salmon, ID. These solutions can not be "Just move out of dying places". That is just as bad as telling coal miners to learn to code. That means that different regions will have to have different standards, something we have not seem to come to grip with here in the US.
- toolz 6y ago
  It seems that predictive modelers seem to often come to conclusions that put them in the spotlight and elevate the status of their field of research. It it probably more fair to say that scary models get more attention and thus incentivize scary modeling though.
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  Not this time as all parameters are worsen by each year, Australia and California wildfires, lose of ice, most significantly thawing permafrost at Siberia that contains potential of 100 - 1000 Gt of CH4 (Methane 75 times more potent than CO2 currently there is only 5Gt of methane in atmosphere) which would be enough to tip things over instantly ... In fact it was never "always 10 years" as tipping point has been considered 450 ppm (it could be sooner), and CO2 is steadily increasing currently is 412.16 ppm. https://www.co2.earth/ https://www.co2.earth/ So we can estimate how much time is left by progression.
  - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
    Regarding California and Australia they might not be as big CO2 emitters as you might expect as long as the forest grows back well after fires.
    - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
      Young trees cannot not sequester amount of CO2 as mature forests. Not even close. And trends are showing that droughts will continue, so there will be not enough water for them to grow.
      - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
        No, but young forests grow into old forests and while they don't hold as much CO2 they sequester it much much faster. (assuming of course that there is good regeneration after fires.)
        bandushrew 6y ago
        unless they burn every year.
toolz 6y ago
I think the most interesting datapoint to have come from global covid lockdowns is just how little the world is contributing to greenhouse gases compared to china. https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1287538522266767360/photo/1 https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/128753852226676736...
- gruez 6y ago
  Just wondering, before the pandemic broke, was each countries' accounting of their co2 emissions in dispute? In other words, if you summed up every country's estimate and compared it to actual global co2 levels, was there a huge mismatch? I'm hesitant to take the tweet at face value, judging by the other posts the twitter user made.
  - toolz 6y ago
    yeah the author isn't very credible but the data is sourced and the point seems to stand as far as I can tell. The sources do not seem to be contested as far as I can tell.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >but the data is sourced and the point seems to stand as far as I can tell. Doesn't that describe most pseudoscience/conspiracy posts though? They rarely make up data outright, but instead they cherrypick data that fits their theory. This is why I asked if this theory was already a thing before the pandemic. If it's really the case that China (or any other major emitter) is underreporting their emissions, you'd think that someone at a reputable institution would have raised the alarm about the inconsistency in the past two decades. The lack of this is a reason to doubt the validity of this, at least to a casual observer. With regards to actual explanations, the twitter thread provides many: * chinese new year * sanctions/tariffs * different style of lockdown by china vs the US
      - toolz 6y ago
        conspiracy theory? As I understand it this is merely measuring data and comparing it to previous measurements. Either the data is wrong or it isn't - there's no need to complicate things with conspiracy theories or anything else
NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
I have not meant to sound apocalyptic, just wanted to say that after that time frame natural positive feedback loop of CO2 will take over and there is not chance of reversing, at that point it is big unknown. But it will be very difficult for billions to survive as crops will start failing on regular bases, floods etc...
- simonsarris 6y ago
  Totally agree we're going into uncharted territory, but does CO2 have a feedback loop like you say? The thermal forcing function is logarithmic, and a hotter earth means a technically wetter and perhaps greener earth, at least in the near-term. I have no doubt we're all in for a wild ride but I think we know significantly less than forecasting doom for certain.
  - TheGRS 6y ago
    The CO2 part is easier to predict than nature's response, it's also the part that we humans have more control over. Part of the problem with assuming nature will do its thing is that it could take much longer for nature to sort out than what our short lifespans can reasonably feel comfortable with.
    - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
      Agreed fully, although in media usually mention planet in danger, planet is fine, few million years now and then and there will be life again flourishing on the planet, but we do not know what/how will that life look like. Issue is that our race and ecosystems as we know it - are in danger.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    I think issue is desertification, and spikes in temperatures causing plants to get into state of shock. Some tree species are very susceptible to temperature change, so they can suddenly die. Also, trees except being CO2 deposits are huge deposits of water, so tree evaporation draws more rain, and there is entire feedback cycle of water, so it is not simple as "more heat more rain as 2/3 of planet is water", as by same logic in deserts would be rain all the time. It is interesting how clouds form as well, as they need small particles, basically seeds to form...
cmrx64 6y ago
around that time (2000) we passed the greenland ice sheet tipping point, and that's going to put a lot of water into the ocean.
feralimal 6y ago
And before that the predictions were for a mini ice age. Frankly I have very little faith in these 'projections', whether it is for global warming, or presidential races. I think these are better thought of management techniques in the here and now, intended to achieve a present-day objective, eg increase fear, get consent to take more taxes, stuff like that.
- TheGRS 6y ago
  I think if all you go by are headlines that press on the outlier events then you'll probably be in perpetual awe of how wrong science is. Comets are consistently flying by earth and always have some small chance of collision. Doesn't mean the science is wrong, but the headlines probably still touted the possibility. With climate change, it was always more in the realm of probability that larger events would be later down the road and we would see more gradual change (like we are now!), rather than the doom and gloom possibilities presented in many documentaries.
- dylan604 6y ago
  We can't even accurately state what the weather will be tomorrow let alone a 10 day forecast. Anything after 3 days is just solid guessing. 10 years is just someone looking to make headlines
  - throwaway_hey 6y ago
    We don't have to look forward, we can look backwards and see that temperatures are rising. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ ==No matter where 2020 ends up in the standings, it will be warm enough to knock 1998 out of NOAA’s top 10. When that happens, all of the 10 warmest years in their records will have occurred since 2005—and the top seven will have occurred since 2014—Sánchez-Lugo says.== https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-2020-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-2020-be-the-...
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Weather != Climate
rement 6y ago
Add it to the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...
foota 6y ago
They weren't wrong, low lying countries are already seeing issues, and will indeed be gone eventually.
seg_lol 6y ago
Please don't do this here.
moultano 6y ago
That happened. It is no longer plausible for us to hold temperatures to 1.5C, which means that we will lose the polar ice cap, and greenland will slowly melt. The weather in the Northern hemisphere will consequently become chaotic and unlike any weather since we developed agriculture. The thing everyone misinterprets is that there is no hard threshold beyond which things cannot get any worse. Even though the warming that is now locked in was considered the end of the world before, and will have catastrophic effects on the world, it is still worth fighting to keep it from getting even worse. The worst case scenarios from a "business as usual" rate of emissions growth would in a few hundred years have mankind isolated to a few extremes of latitude as the only places left where the outdoor temperatures won't kill us. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/08/20/climate-emergency-130-degrees/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/08/20/climate-emergenc...
ogre_codes 6y ago
> why does that sound familiar You expect Armageddon will happen overnight? I have no idea if we've hit the point of no return or not, but it's gotten exceedingly clear that we're already seeing the effects of climate change and that they are accelerating. Fires in California, the Amazon, Oregon, Washington. Record high temperatures in various places all over the world. Massive shifts in storm patters, etc.

fastball 6y ago

Yeah, at this point climate change has kinda become nuclear fusion – always 10 years away from the end. Not that we shouldn't do anything, because climate change is real. It would just be nice if people could stop being so fire and brimstone about stuff that turns out not to be the end of the world after all (like ACB getting confirmed to SCOTUS). The society that cried wolf.

dgritsko 6y ago
I mean, Barrett was sworn in less than a week ago. Regardless of how you feel about her, it's far too early to make any kind of judgement about the implications of her confirmation.
- fastball 6y ago
  There is no possible way the implications will be anywhere near the level of dire that you'd believe after reading the news articles and seeing people's internet comments and tweets. I mean, people are talking about an overturn of Roe v. Wade, somehow failing to realize that RvW was ruled on by a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage.
  - wycy 6y ago
    The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, and Mississippi's attempt to pass a 15-week abortion ban is just the start.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.
      - wycy 6y ago
        The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
        fastball 6y ago
        Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
- themaninthedark 6y ago
  I'll bite, how about all the dire predictions that Trump would start a war with North Korea? Or that he was going to crash the economy right away? I am someone who does believe that we are having an impact on the global temp. and I do think we need to do something about it. Screaming the sky is falling is not helping. Stonewalling any other source of power except Solar and Wind is not helping. Suggesting that we cut back farmland drastically, in a move that would kill a bunch of people is not helping. Telling people to give up cars and planes is not helping. We need to work to come up with solutions that will work for everyone, not just San Fransisco, New York, Amsterdam. We need solutions for Valdosta, GA, Snowshoe, WV, Salmon, ID. These solutions can not be "Just move out of dying places". That is just as bad as telling coal miners to learn to code. That means that different regions will have to have different standards, something we have not seem to come to grip with here in the US.
toolz 6y ago
It seems that predictive modelers seem to often come to conclusions that put them in the spotlight and elevate the status of their field of research. It it probably more fair to say that scary models get more attention and thus incentivize scary modeling though.
NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
Not this time as all parameters are worsen by each year, Australia and California wildfires, lose of ice, most significantly thawing permafrost at Siberia that contains potential of 100 - 1000 Gt of CH4 (Methane 75 times more potent than CO2 currently there is only 5Gt of methane in atmosphere) which would be enough to tip things over instantly ... In fact it was never "always 10 years" as tipping point has been considered 450 ppm (it could be sooner), and CO2 is steadily increasing currently is 412.16 ppm. https://www.co2.earth/ https://www.co2.earth/ So we can estimate how much time is left by progression.
- quixoticelixer- 6y ago
  Regarding California and Australia they might not be as big CO2 emitters as you might expect as long as the forest grows back well after fires.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    Young trees cannot not sequester amount of CO2 as mature forests. Not even close. And trends are showing that droughts will continue, so there will be not enough water for them to grow.
    - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
      No, but young forests grow into old forests and while they don't hold as much CO2 they sequester it much much faster. (assuming of course that there is good regeneration after fires.)
      - bandushrew 6y ago
        unless they burn every year.

toolz 6y ago

I think the most interesting datapoint to have come from global covid lockdowns is just how little the world is contributing to greenhouse gases compared to china. https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1287538522266767360/photo/1 https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/128753852226676736...

gruez 6y ago
Just wondering, before the pandemic broke, was each countries' accounting of their co2 emissions in dispute? In other words, if you summed up every country's estimate and compared it to actual global co2 levels, was there a huge mismatch? I'm hesitant to take the tweet at face value, judging by the other posts the twitter user made.
- toolz 6y ago
  yeah the author isn't very credible but the data is sourced and the point seems to stand as far as I can tell. The sources do not seem to be contested as far as I can tell.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >but the data is sourced and the point seems to stand as far as I can tell. Doesn't that describe most pseudoscience/conspiracy posts though? They rarely make up data outright, but instead they cherrypick data that fits their theory. This is why I asked if this theory was already a thing before the pandemic. If it's really the case that China (or any other major emitter) is underreporting their emissions, you'd think that someone at a reputable institution would have raised the alarm about the inconsistency in the past two decades. The lack of this is a reason to doubt the validity of this, at least to a casual observer. With regards to actual explanations, the twitter thread provides many: * chinese new year * sanctions/tariffs * different style of lockdown by china vs the US
    - toolz 6y ago
      conspiracy theory? As I understand it this is merely measuring data and comparing it to previous measurements. Either the data is wrong or it isn't - there's no need to complicate things with conspiracy theories or anything else

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago

I have not meant to sound apocalyptic, just wanted to say that after that time frame natural positive feedback loop of CO2 will take over and there is not chance of reversing, at that point it is big unknown. But it will be very difficult for billions to survive as crops will start failing on regular bases, floods etc...

simonsarris 6y ago
Totally agree we're going into uncharted territory, but does CO2 have a feedback loop like you say? The thermal forcing function is logarithmic, and a hotter earth means a technically wetter and perhaps greener earth, at least in the near-term. I have no doubt we're all in for a wild ride but I think we know significantly less than forecasting doom for certain.
- TheGRS 6y ago
  The CO2 part is easier to predict than nature's response, it's also the part that we humans have more control over. Part of the problem with assuming nature will do its thing is that it could take much longer for nature to sort out than what our short lifespans can reasonably feel comfortable with.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    Agreed fully, although in media usually mention planet in danger, planet is fine, few million years now and then and there will be life again flourishing on the planet, but we do not know what/how will that life look like. Issue is that our race and ecosystems as we know it - are in danger.
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  I think issue is desertification, and spikes in temperatures causing plants to get into state of shock. Some tree species are very susceptible to temperature change, so they can suddenly die. Also, trees except being CO2 deposits are huge deposits of water, so tree evaporation draws more rain, and there is entire feedback cycle of water, so it is not simple as "more heat more rain as 2/3 of planet is water", as by same logic in deserts would be rain all the time. It is interesting how clouds form as well, as they need small particles, basically seeds to form...

cmrx64 6y ago

around that time (2000) we passed the greenland ice sheet tipping point, and that's going to put a lot of water into the ocean.

feralimal 6y ago

And before that the predictions were for a mini ice age. Frankly I have very little faith in these 'projections', whether it is for global warming, or presidential races. I think these are better thought of management techniques in the here and now, intended to achieve a present-day objective, eg increase fear, get consent to take more taxes, stuff like that.

TheGRS 6y ago
I think if all you go by are headlines that press on the outlier events then you'll probably be in perpetual awe of how wrong science is. Comets are consistently flying by earth and always have some small chance of collision. Doesn't mean the science is wrong, but the headlines probably still touted the possibility. With climate change, it was always more in the realm of probability that larger events would be later down the road and we would see more gradual change (like we are now!), rather than the doom and gloom possibilities presented in many documentaries.
dylan604 6y ago
We can't even accurately state what the weather will be tomorrow let alone a 10 day forecast. Anything after 3 days is just solid guessing. 10 years is just someone looking to make headlines
- throwaway_hey 6y ago
  We don't have to look forward, we can look backwards and see that temperatures are rising. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ ==No matter where 2020 ends up in the standings, it will be warm enough to knock 1998 out of NOAA’s top 10. When that happens, all of the 10 warmest years in their records will have occurred since 2005—and the top seven will have occurred since 2014—Sánchez-Lugo says.== https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-2020-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-2020-be-the-...
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  Weather != Climate

rement 6y ago

Add it to the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...

foota 6y ago

They weren't wrong, low lying countries are already seeing issues, and will indeed be gone eventually.

seg_lol 6y ago

Please don't do this here.

moultano 6y ago

That happened. It is no longer plausible for us to hold temperatures to 1.5C, which means that we will lose the polar ice cap, and greenland will slowly melt. The weather in the Northern hemisphere will consequently become chaotic and unlike any weather since we developed agriculture. The thing everyone misinterprets is that there is no hard threshold beyond which things cannot get any worse. Even though the warming that is now locked in was considered the end of the world before, and will have catastrophic effects on the world, it is still worth fighting to keep it from getting even worse. The worst case scenarios from a "business as usual" rate of emissions growth would in a few hundred years have mankind isolated to a few extremes of latitude as the only places left where the outdoor temperatures won't kill us. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/08/20/climate-emergency-130-degrees/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/08/20/climate-emergenc...

ogre_codes 6y ago

> why does that sound familiar You expect Armageddon will happen overnight? I have no idea if we've hit the point of no return or not, but it's gotten exceedingly clear that we're already seeing the effects of climate change and that they are accelerating. Fires in California, the Amazon, Oregon, Washington. Record high temperatures in various places all over the world. Massive shifts in storm patters, etc.