7 ms·

Keep in mind the scale of the experiment we're living in: between the peak of last ice age (when most of today's developed countries were either under a thick d

by wazoox 5y ago

Keep in mind the scale of the experiment we're living in: between the peak of last ice age (when most of today's developed countries were either under a thick dome of ice, or dry cold steppes with roaming hordes of woolly mammoths) and pre-industrial climate, the global temperature increase was only 5°C, occurring over a few millenia (though this increase was enough to destroy completely this environment and its mammoths, wooly rhinos, cave bears, etc). Now we're talking of adding 4°C in a couple of centuries. What could go wrong, really? Yeah, about everything, and really strong and fast. People don't worry because they think of having 4°C daily increase temperature, no big deal: temperature swings daily by tens of degrees. But they should instead think of a fever: a 2°C fever is already pretty strong; a 4°C fever is a very serious condition, potentially deadly.

AlexanderDhoore 5y ago
Global increase of 4°C means about 8°C increase on land (roughly double). Anything past 3-4°C global increase is just destruction of a massive scale. Just 2°C would be manageable, but we are going to shoot past that really fast (me things). EDIT: My first sentence is scientific fact (double land temperature). My second sentence is mostly accepted by climate scientists, though the details can be debated (just how bad it's going to get). The third sentence is my personal opinion and only time will tell. But sure, downvote me.
syops 5y ago
I’m not a climate scientist and a few degree increase used to seem like a small thing to me. Then I realized that increasing the global temperature average by a few degrees means putting in a massive amount of more energy into the system and then it clicked for me how much of a big deal this is. This massive increase in energy into the system over a very short period of time means lots of chaotic events will ensue before a new equilibrium is obtained.
- madaxe_again 5y ago
  It’s interesting that you touch on energy — temperature is a measure of the energy of a system, but most people don’t think of it in those terms. If you consider how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of your living room by 4C (about 840J per m3), and then extrapolate that to the entire planet, it’s a phenomenal amount of energy, incomprehensibly vast. Then, consider that the oceans, with a heat capacity of 4.2MJ per m3 and a vast volume are also warming by entire degrees, and it’s just staggering.
  - loopz 5y ago
    Yet, the core is even hotter. So we're mostly talking about the relatively thin crust layer on top. Core and mantle has practically unlimited energy supply as well. The planet is basically alot larger, and contains lots more energy than we normally account for.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - syops 5y ago
      What does the energy of the Earth’s core have to do with climate? Outside of the effects of volcanoes I can’t think of anything.
      - loopz 5y ago
        I just can't imagine why the bigger picture is never interesting. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=...
        syops 5y ago
        From the first link it appears the effect is based on how the liquid flow of the core affects the orbit of the planet. The energy of the core does not play the same role on climate change as the energy that we’ve input into the system. I don’t think anyone is claiming the bigger picture isn’t interesting. Indeed, I did ask for clarification precisely because I was interested in learning something new.
        loopz 5y ago
        The NASA study seems to be yet another vector to validate human-caused warming of climate. Validation is one thing, but also understanding exactly how and why we're moving away from an equilibrium vs core cycles, and what that may mean, may say something compelling. We're like fleas on the back of a giant elephant, and it might help to reorient to gain clarity. Mind you, I don't bring answers, only unasked questions and some wonder. The other thing is the enormous amount of geothermal energy, trapped beneath our feet. We may require energy, ie. to trap greenhouse gases and as replacement for fossile fuels. https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide-stay-in-the-atmosphere/ https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide...
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  Another issue I think is that the average hides a lot. Both (1, 2, 8, 9) and (4, 5, 5, 6) have the same average. Now extend that to 365 days, and there's a lot of room for wild events leading to "just" a 1 degree increase in average temperature.
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    But then, maybe the average temperature is not the right thing to use in this context. In France, the usual term is "climate warming", not sure about other places. Maybe we should use a term that shows that there's an increase in unusual temperature swings and / or exceptional events. These should be much more intelligible for the average person. 1º increase? Meh, 32º or 33º feel roughly the same. Huge storms that tear the roofs off houses ever other week? Yeah, that might actually be a concern.
    - nerdponx 5y ago
      In the US, the term "climate change" has come to be used in favor of "global warming". It probably helped, but the nature of the propaganda and misinformation also shifted to adapt.
      - orwin 5y ago
        I think that the words "climate drift" are more accurate: the climate won't change back on human timescale, we will never have 2021 climate ever again. And with the system inertia (the physical system, i'm not talking about our inaction), unless positive feedback loops are discovered as the drift continue, we will never have 2030 climate again. Even if every emissions stopped tomorrow.
    - wholinator2 5y ago
      I've always thought the term Climate Destabilization would be better. No one cares if it gets warm. Everyone cares if their way of life gets destabilized.
      - 5y ago
imtringued 5y ago
The biggest historic polluters don't care because their temperatures were nice already. It's primarily those regions that had awful temperatures to begin with that will suffer. You hear all these people coming up with reasons why more CO2 is a good thing but this is always under the assumption that you live in a country that is not impacted by the negative effects. Everything is positive if you are blind to the negatives.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  This is the hidden reason for the wall. No politician could possibly admit it, but geopolitically, temperate climate countries are going to be net beneficiaries and will need to protect themselves from tropical and sub tropical countries. The crop famines and water shortages will displace a billion people and no northern country can handle that many refugees. No matter how horrific it will be, the US military knows they will need to be stopped at a strong border and is preparing for the next few decades. It is also the root cause behind Brexit, the UK is preparing for the EU to be overwhelmed across its enormous southern and eastern border and is cutting its losses now. If you think there are not strategists taking the best available information an d making 30 year plans then you are quite mistaken.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    delusional
  - manmal 5y ago
    The proponent of the wall doesn’t even believe in catastrophic climate change.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    I actually think you're right about this to some extent, but you're kidding yourself if you think you personally will be a beneficiary. If anyone is going to be protected, it will be the ultra-wealthy/powerful and their immediate families. Regular Americans will be left to fight for survival with the rest the world. And border with Mexico will have nothing to do with it.
gmuslera 5y ago
Is global yearly average temperature what increases. It is an average that takes into account from the coldest night of winter in the south pole to the hottest days in the sahara. You should not see it as "today's temperature + 4ºC", specially in something as complex as the global climate system. What you will see in the day to day scale is more extreme weather, reaching new highs, changing in climate features (like some essential sea currents, like the gulf stream, and also air currents like the polar vortex) and not so friendly weather for things that implies predictability, like agriculture, because bad weather in some critical stages mean the loss of crops. Also, the increase of temperature, the extremes that it reaches, are not evenly distributed, the highest temperature anomalies happen around the poles, where you have a lot of factors that will provide a positive feedback to increase global warming (releasing buried/frozen carbon, less albedo due to ice melting, etc)
RandomLensman 5y ago
If I were to predict the future, I'd say we will see a move away from focusing on passive measures (such as reduction in carbon emissions) to active measures pretty quickly as the passive stuff is not fast enough. Telling people they will collapse under the heat now while increasing taxes etc. for a long-term agenda will not work well in most societies...
dv_dt 5y ago
If the average is raised in a process that is described in as implied form by say a gaussian distribution, the tails of the distribution increase by far more than the average. And for climate change the std deviation will increase too.

by wazoox 5y ago

AlexanderDhoore 5y ago

Global increase of 4°C means about 8°C increase on land (roughly double). Anything past 3-4°C global increase is just destruction of a massive scale. Just 2°C would be manageable, but we are going to shoot past that really fast (me things). EDIT: My first sentence is scientific fact (double land temperature). My second sentence is mostly accepted by climate scientists, though the details can be debated (just how bad it's going to get). The third sentence is my personal opinion and only time will tell. But sure, downvote me.

syops 5y ago

I’m not a climate scientist and a few degree increase used to seem like a small thing to me. Then I realized that increasing the global temperature average by a few degrees means putting in a massive amount of more energy into the system and then it clicked for me how much of a big deal this is. This massive increase in energy into the system over a very short period of time means lots of chaotic events will ensue before a new equilibrium is obtained.

madaxe_again 5y ago
It’s interesting that you touch on energy — temperature is a measure of the energy of a system, but most people don’t think of it in those terms. If you consider how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of your living room by 4C (about 840J per m3), and then extrapolate that to the entire planet, it’s a phenomenal amount of energy, incomprehensibly vast. Then, consider that the oceans, with a heat capacity of 4.2MJ per m3 and a vast volume are also warming by entire degrees, and it’s just staggering.
- loopz 5y ago
  Yet, the core is even hotter. So we're mostly talking about the relatively thin crust layer on top. Core and mantle has practically unlimited energy supply as well. The planet is basically alot larger, and contains lots more energy than we normally account for.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - syops 5y ago
    What does the energy of the Earth’s core have to do with climate? Outside of the effects of volcanoes I can’t think of anything.
    - loopz 5y ago
      I just can't imagine why the bigger picture is never interesting. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=earth+mantle+core+climate&ia=...
      - syops 5y ago
        From the first link it appears the effect is based on how the liquid flow of the core affects the orbit of the planet. The energy of the core does not play the same role on climate change as the energy that we’ve input into the system. I don’t think anyone is claiming the bigger picture isn’t interesting. Indeed, I did ask for clarification precisely because I was interested in learning something new.
        loopz 5y ago
        The NASA study seems to be yet another vector to validate human-caused warming of climate. Validation is one thing, but also understanding exactly how and why we're moving away from an equilibrium vs core cycles, and what that may mean, may say something compelling. We're like fleas on the back of a giant elephant, and it might help to reorient to gain clarity. Mind you, I don't bring answers, only unasked questions and some wonder. The other thing is the enormous amount of geothermal energy, trapped beneath our feet. We may require energy, ie. to trap greenhouse gases and as replacement for fossile fuels. https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide-stay-in-the-atmosphere/ https://www.greenandgrowing.org/how-long-does-carbon-dioxide...
magicalhippo 5y ago
Another issue I think is that the average hides a lot. Both (1, 2, 8, 9) and (4, 5, 5, 6) have the same average. Now extend that to 365 days, and there's a lot of room for wild events leading to "just" a 1 degree increase in average temperature.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  But then, maybe the average temperature is not the right thing to use in this context. In France, the usual term is "climate warming", not sure about other places. Maybe we should use a term that shows that there's an increase in unusual temperature swings and / or exceptional events. These should be much more intelligible for the average person. 1º increase? Meh, 32º or 33º feel roughly the same. Huge storms that tear the roofs off houses ever other week? Yeah, that might actually be a concern.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    In the US, the term "climate change" has come to be used in favor of "global warming". It probably helped, but the nature of the propaganda and misinformation also shifted to adapt.
    - orwin 5y ago
      I think that the words "climate drift" are more accurate: the climate won't change back on human timescale, we will never have 2021 climate ever again. And with the system inertia (the physical system, i'm not talking about our inaction), unless positive feedback loops are discovered as the drift continue, we will never have 2030 climate again. Even if every emissions stopped tomorrow.
  - wholinator2 5y ago
    I've always thought the term Climate Destabilization would be better. No one cares if it gets warm. Everyone cares if their way of life gets destabilized.
    - 5y ago

imtringued 5y ago

The biggest historic polluters don't care because their temperatures were nice already. It's primarily those regions that had awful temperatures to begin with that will suffer. You hear all these people coming up with reasons why more CO2 is a good thing but this is always under the assumption that you live in a country that is not impacted by the negative effects. Everything is positive if you are blind to the negatives.

dougmwne 5y ago
This is the hidden reason for the wall. No politician could possibly admit it, but geopolitically, temperate climate countries are going to be net beneficiaries and will need to protect themselves from tropical and sub tropical countries. The crop famines and water shortages will displace a billion people and no northern country can handle that many refugees. No matter how horrific it will be, the US military knows they will need to be stopped at a strong border and is preparing for the next few decades. It is also the root cause behind Brexit, the UK is preparing for the EU to be overwhelmed across its enormous southern and eastern border and is cutting its losses now. If you think there are not strategists taking the best available information an d making 30 year plans then you are quite mistaken.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  delusional
- manmal 5y ago
  The proponent of the wall doesn’t even believe in catastrophic climate change.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  I actually think you're right about this to some extent, but you're kidding yourself if you think you personally will be a beneficiary. If anyone is going to be protected, it will be the ultra-wealthy/powerful and their immediate families. Regular Americans will be left to fight for survival with the rest the world. And border with Mexico will have nothing to do with it.

gmuslera 5y ago

Is global yearly average temperature what increases. It is an average that takes into account from the coldest night of winter in the south pole to the hottest days in the sahara. You should not see it as "today's temperature + 4ºC", specially in something as complex as the global climate system. What you will see in the day to day scale is more extreme weather, reaching new highs, changing in climate features (like some essential sea currents, like the gulf stream, and also air currents like the polar vortex) and not so friendly weather for things that implies predictability, like agriculture, because bad weather in some critical stages mean the loss of crops. Also, the increase of temperature, the extremes that it reaches, are not evenly distributed, the highest temperature anomalies happen around the poles, where you have a lot of factors that will provide a positive feedback to increase global warming (releasing buried/frozen carbon, less albedo due to ice melting, etc)

RandomLensman 5y ago

If I were to predict the future, I'd say we will see a move away from focusing on passive measures (such as reduction in carbon emissions) to active measures pretty quickly as the passive stuff is not fast enough. Telling people they will collapse under the heat now while increasing taxes etc. for a long-term agenda will not work well in most societies...

dv_dt 5y ago

If the average is raised in a process that is described in as implied form by say a gaussian distribution, the tails of the distribution increase by far more than the average. And for climate change the std deviation will increase too.