4 ms·

I just read a study showing this europe crops crisis. And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off

I just read a study showing this europe crops crisis. And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off) in their worst case (e.g. we're there or past it in many respects). Armagedon is the last battle. To me that's what climate crisis is and how we need to look at it and take immediate action. We battle and win or we lose and it's really really really bad. Maybe others have better examples of worse than imagined climate problems, but here is one I read from Reddit/HN last week. New research shows faster slowing Gulf Stream. I can't find the exact thread that summarized - it did a direct comparison to the recent article to IPCC showing IPCC's worst case is not even close to as bad as the new measured slow down. A few sources below, one decade old one says 10x from IPCC's worst and the recent article showed even faster slowdown; like on the scale of a less than a century we could be past a tipping point. When it tipped in the past it made europe very cold and rose eastern us sea levels a lot. From my understanding, this would affect staple crops in Europe (google says europe 300 tonnes, us at 440), help melt a LOT more ice & sea level rise etc. I think that the faster than expected melting ice in greenland we're seeing also increases the slowdown? "totally unexpected decline in the AMOC of about 30% - far greater than the range of interannual variability found in the climate models used for the IPCC assessments" "10 times as fast as predicted by climatemodels." https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/earths-gulf-stream-system-its-weakest-over-millennium https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/earths-gulf-stream-syste... http://archive.is/YRqDY http://archive.is/YRqDY https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/climate/deliverables/amoc.pdf https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metoffi... https://www.rapid.ac.uk/research/tenyearsofrapid.php https://www.rapid.ac.uk/research/tenyearsofrapid.php https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0897-7.epdf?sharing_token=m8QWSQ95dU8zBfFouFihL9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P_fenNJ290SiWJMw_C9w9HjACLcf4Q500Kz1xQHqomoTQOlFgsihVnpATv5Es0B7VV0K0dAIf7c4G6fqS6ekAVBx36wXeY4q1Kz19Er6D5oGLV6FcWcVUD91dF0JoWi7CdLmlgvbo8FWkmi7a7tNdynoKaSdHcmVazMR-WZUzTdjV8lxj6dqjWoNZgSxjRI6w%3D&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0897-7.epdf?shari... https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/j6nl18/siberian_arctic_ice_still_hasnt_started/ https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/j6nl18/siberian_a...

xyzzyz 6y ago
> And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off) in their worst case (e.g. we're there or past it in many respects). Of course, that's expected. Even if you assume that IPCC is 100% on point, then with p-value threshold of 0.05, you'd expect 1 in every 20 studies to show that IPCC is off. The real question is whether the scientific consensus changes by the time the next IPCC report comes out. Maybe it will, we shall see. At the same time, consider what kind of message you are sending here: you are asking everyone to not listen to scientific consensus, and instead promote alarmism, because there are a few studies that challenge the consensus. There is nothing wrong with challenging the consensus, that's how we get progress, but how do you want to win trust of the society, which is required to deal with this planet-wide situation, when, right after the (mostly won) fight for people to stop with denialism and believe the science, you turn around and say "yeah, that consensus we asked you to believe, instead of a handful of contrarian papers, is not what we actually want you to believe, instead you should believe this other handful of contrarian papers"? That's only going to sow distrust and alienate people.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  I'm more asking that we take dramatic, drastic, and gigantic efforts to 'fight' the 'last battle' on climate change if you will take this thread metaphor lol i agree with you on the nitty gritty for a general audience. mostly i dont think bogging down the public with research helps and it's way too often used in bad faith to do the opposite by industry and certain political groups acting in their own interest on the other hand on the other hand if like half the country experiencing some weather catastrophe in the last 5 years doesnt do it im not sure ;( so i do think we need more fear and for sure a lot more alarm, but yeah probably not alarmism in the sense i think you are probably referring to i do love HN though for a higher level discussion
spiralx 6y ago
The effect of the Gulf Stream on European climate isn't as large as often made out to be. The simple fact that Europe is on the western side of a continental landmass accounts for a huge portion of its climate - air travelling west to east over the ocean absorbs warm moisture and heats up, as the wind travels east across land it sheds that moisture via rain and becomes dryer and colder. It's one of the reasons why Vancouver and London have similar climates, and both never get as cold as either of New York or Vladivostok, both of which are to the south of them.

xyzzyz 6y ago

> And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off) in their worst case (e.g. we're there or past it in many respects). Of course, that's expected. Even if you assume that IPCC is 100% on point, then with p-value threshold of 0.05, you'd expect 1 in every 20 studies to show that IPCC is off. The real question is whether the scientific consensus changes by the time the next IPCC report comes out. Maybe it will, we shall see. At the same time, consider what kind of message you are sending here: you are asking everyone to not listen to scientific consensus, and instead promote alarmism, because there are a few studies that challenge the consensus. There is nothing wrong with challenging the consensus, that's how we get progress, but how do you want to win trust of the society, which is required to deal with this planet-wide situation, when, right after the (mostly won) fight for people to stop with denialism and believe the science, you turn around and say "yeah, that consensus we asked you to believe, instead of a handful of contrarian papers, is not what we actually want you to believe, instead you should believe this other handful of contrarian papers"? That's only going to sow distrust and alienate people.

dillondoyle 6y ago
I'm more asking that we take dramatic, drastic, and gigantic efforts to 'fight' the 'last battle' on climate change if you will take this thread metaphor lol i agree with you on the nitty gritty for a general audience. mostly i dont think bogging down the public with research helps and it's way too often used in bad faith to do the opposite by industry and certain political groups acting in their own interest on the other hand on the other hand if like half the country experiencing some weather catastrophe in the last 5 years doesnt do it im not sure ;( so i do think we need more fear and for sure a lot more alarm, but yeah probably not alarmism in the sense i think you are probably referring to i do love HN though for a higher level discussion

spiralx 6y ago

The effect of the Gulf Stream on European climate isn't as large as often made out to be. The simple fact that Europe is on the western side of a continental landmass accounts for a huge portion of its climate - air travelling west to east over the ocean absorbs warm moisture and heats up, as the wind travels east across land it sheds that moisture via rain and becomes dryer and colder. It's one of the reasons why Vancouver and London have similar climates, and both never get as cold as either of New York or Vladivostok, both of which are to the south of them.