6 ms·

From the article: > The six tipping points "likely" to be crossed, according to the research, published in Science, are: - Greenland Ice Sheet collapse - Wes

From the article: > The six tipping points "likely" to be crossed, according to the research, published in Science, are: - Greenland Ice Sheet collapse - West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse - Collapse of ocean circulation in the polar region of the North Atlantic - Coral reef die off in the low latitudes - Sudden thawing of permafrost in the Northern regions - Abrupt sea ice loss in the Barents Sea. The Science research article: Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950

titzer 4y ago
> - Sudden thawing of permafrost in the Northern regions It seems like I was reading a lot of articles about the Permafrost in Siberia hitting temperature records as well as suffering from massive wildfires. Now it seems like there is less news from that region.
- hgh 4y ago
  A well done (gated) recent FT article on the boreal forest that also speaks to decreased scientific collaboration post-Ukraine war: https://www.ft.com/content/e59c800f-3704-4504-91b0-06e583d9cd42 https://www.ft.com/content/e59c800f-3704-4504-91b0-06e583d9c...
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Archive.Is (Archive Today) bypasses FT paywall. <https://archive.ph/nmaK7 https://archive.ph/nmaK7>
- onion2k 4y ago
  Now it seems like there is less news from that region. The news industry is a business like any other. Journalists don't stop reporting on things when the things stop happening; they stop reporting when they feel the reports aren't driving engagement with the audience, eg revenue. There is only a loose correlation between what's happening in the world and what's being reported in newspapers and journals when it comes to long term trends.
  - biorach 4y ago
    excellent summary
  - Joeri 4y ago
    They report only what is novel and salient for the target audience. If something is on-going but not novel it won’t be reported on until something novel happens (e.g. climate change only gets reported on when there’s some kind of study, report, natural disaster or climate conference), and they will only report what they consider salient facts (e.g. general news will not report on the actual science, because that’s too technical and boring, only on controversy around the science or controversial conclusions drawn from the science). What is novel and salient is only a tiny fraction of what is relevant to come to an informed opinion. That’s why news is set up for failure if its role is seen as informing the public. I see more potential for documentaries when it comes to informing the public, but the news controversies around past climate documentaries have made the category somewhat burnt.
  - dspillett 4y ago
    > ournalists don't stop reporting on things when the things stop happening; they stop reporting when they feel the reports aren't driving engagement with the audience, eg revenue. Also when something is getting worse at the same rate it was getting worse previously, engagement drops in favour of stories where change is new or accelerating: over the last while has been Covid then Ukraine then inflation all blowing up surprisingly and rapidly while the permafrost situation is quietly getting worse as expected. If you are in the UK right now you'd be forgiven for asking “whatever happened to news about inflation and Ukraine” because they fell off the news cycle for a while unless you took efforts to look beyond the daily headlines & front-pages, as they were progressing just as bad as before but something else (the health of ol' Liz and related constitutional matters) had a sudden bump in its rate of change. Even the 9/11 anniversary didn't get a look-in. Ukraine is creeping back into the news cycle, as monarch related matters are settling into their final pattern (everyone who needs/wants to know has a clue how the next week or few are going to pan out in that regard) but there has been a sudden change in the Ukraine/Russia situation in the form of the recent surprise counter offensive (surprise both in that such an effort was not sign-posted, for the obvious reason that being unexpected was part of the plan, and in how effectively it has worked).
- pjc50 4y ago
  Well, yes, the war has made it more difficult and dangerous to do journalism of any kind in Russia.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  There have been massive fires going on in russia this year. Normally the army would help put them out. They've just shrugged.
Proven 4y ago
guerrilla 4y ago
>Collapse of ocean circulation in the polar region of the North Atlantic Does this mean Ireland, Britain and Scandinavia will get really cold? We depend critically on the Gulf Stream...
- solumunus 4y ago
  Yes.
  - biorach 4y ago
    well... probably... there are no definite predictions when dealing with a chaotic system phase change.
hackerlight 4y ago
When this happens, which regions are going to get much hotter, and which are going to get colder?
- greazy 4y ago
  The weather across the globe will get more chaotic. All across the globe we will start seeing weird weather, including both unusually cold seasons and unusually hot and wetter and drier years. This might seem counter intuitive but if you imagine a pot very slowly heating up, you'd get different regions of cold and hot until the pot reaches equalibrium.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Will there be a particular region where the higher average warming is concentrated? Or will all regions tend to be, on average, warmer (ignoring the higher variation)?
    - orwin 4y ago
      Landmass especially. The increase in average temperature will concentrate over landmasses. Depending on how fast the artic ice cap melt, we could see the average temperature over a year in western europe drop, while increasing over the summer months. But climate is weird, that's why the less we perturb it, the better we get.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        What about small landmasses, like Japan or Indonesia?
        orwin 4y ago
        I'm not an expert, i merely did a lot of research during Covid (nothing better to do tbh), and since i've never asked myself the question, i never researched islands specifically. I think you might be able to find NASA maps and compare the average temperature in 1991 and today, you'll have your response. Sorry if i can't be more helpful.
csdvrx 4y ago
- threeseed 4y ago
  It is not fear mongering. The costs of climate change are going to run into the trillions and the people most affected will be the poor and the disadvantaged. And any positives e.g. better shipping from APAC to Europe (relatively useless) pale in comparison to the negatives e.g. all of the Pacific islands disappearing.
  - csdvrx 4y ago
    > And any positives e.g. better shipping from APAC to Europe (relatively useless) Shipping volumes say otherwise! > pale in comparison to the negatives e.g. all of the Pacific islands disappearing. That's a postulate that remains to be proven. If we are talking about usable landmasses, a few islands disappearing is dwarfed by the unthawing of Siberia + if you prefer islands, the new islands that will be made from Antarctica. There will be costs, and there will be gains. > the people most affected will be the poor and the disadvantaged. The opportunity of a mass migration from poor and mismanaged countries to better run countries or mostly empty places is a once-in-a-millenium event - last seen with Christopher Columbus in America.
modernpink 4y ago
The focus in climate change discourse seems to be all about prevention when we've clearly been headed on course for worst case scenario several degree rise the whole time. Emissions have not even peaked yet with China, India and the rest of the third world essentially outdoing all the progress the first world has made over the past decades. Not to mention the coming surge in population of Africa in the coming decades who will all want material lifestyles for themselves.
- Loic 4y ago
  In Germany, the richest 10% of the population is producing 50% of the CO2. At the world level, the richest 1% is producing double of the poorest 50%. We should not talk about the increase coming from other countries, we should already start with us reducing our impact and adapt. The problem is that we all have/find good excuses not to change our behavior.
  - junofan 4y ago
    It’s trivial to show that doesn’t solve the problem.
  - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
    China together with India account for 35% percent of the world's CO2 emissions, I think it is fair to complain about them a bit.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      That's less than their population share though.
      - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
        yes, because vast swaths of these countries live in extreme poverty, not because of environmental consciousness. we are talking about people who swim next to corpses in the ganges river.

titzer 4y ago

> - Sudden thawing of permafrost in the Northern regions It seems like I was reading a lot of articles about the Permafrost in Siberia hitting temperature records as well as suffering from massive wildfires. Now it seems like there is less news from that region.

hgh 4y ago
A well done (gated) recent FT article on the boreal forest that also speaks to decreased scientific collaboration post-Ukraine war: https://www.ft.com/content/e59c800f-3704-4504-91b0-06e583d9cd42 https://www.ft.com/content/e59c800f-3704-4504-91b0-06e583d9c...
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Archive.Is (Archive Today) bypasses FT paywall. <https://archive.ph/nmaK7 https://archive.ph/nmaK7>
onion2k 4y ago
Now it seems like there is less news from that region. The news industry is a business like any other. Journalists don't stop reporting on things when the things stop happening; they stop reporting when they feel the reports aren't driving engagement with the audience, eg revenue. There is only a loose correlation between what's happening in the world and what's being reported in newspapers and journals when it comes to long term trends.
- biorach 4y ago
  excellent summary
- Joeri 4y ago
  They report only what is novel and salient for the target audience. If something is on-going but not novel it won’t be reported on until something novel happens (e.g. climate change only gets reported on when there’s some kind of study, report, natural disaster or climate conference), and they will only report what they consider salient facts (e.g. general news will not report on the actual science, because that’s too technical and boring, only on controversy around the science or controversial conclusions drawn from the science). What is novel and salient is only a tiny fraction of what is relevant to come to an informed opinion. That’s why news is set up for failure if its role is seen as informing the public. I see more potential for documentaries when it comes to informing the public, but the news controversies around past climate documentaries have made the category somewhat burnt.
- dspillett 4y ago
  > ournalists don't stop reporting on things when the things stop happening; they stop reporting when they feel the reports aren't driving engagement with the audience, eg revenue. Also when something is getting worse at the same rate it was getting worse previously, engagement drops in favour of stories where change is new or accelerating: over the last while has been Covid then Ukraine then inflation all blowing up surprisingly and rapidly while the permafrost situation is quietly getting worse as expected. If you are in the UK right now you'd be forgiven for asking “whatever happened to news about inflation and Ukraine” because they fell off the news cycle for a while unless you took efforts to look beyond the daily headlines & front-pages, as they were progressing just as bad as before but something else (the health of ol' Liz and related constitutional matters) had a sudden bump in its rate of change. Even the 9/11 anniversary didn't get a look-in. Ukraine is creeping back into the news cycle, as monarch related matters are settling into their final pattern (everyone who needs/wants to know has a clue how the next week or few are going to pan out in that regard) but there has been a sudden change in the Ukraine/Russia situation in the form of the recent surprise counter offensive (surprise both in that such an effort was not sign-posted, for the obvious reason that being unexpected was part of the plan, and in how effectively it has worked).
pjc50 4y ago
Well, yes, the war has made it more difficult and dangerous to do journalism of any kind in Russia.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
There have been massive fires going on in russia this year. Normally the army would help put them out. They've just shrugged.

Proven 4y ago

guerrilla 4y ago

>Collapse of ocean circulation in the polar region of the North Atlantic Does this mean Ireland, Britain and Scandinavia will get really cold? We depend critically on the Gulf Stream...

solumunus 4y ago
Yes.
- biorach 4y ago
  well... probably... there are no definite predictions when dealing with a chaotic system phase change.

hackerlight 4y ago

When this happens, which regions are going to get much hotter, and which are going to get colder?

greazy 4y ago
The weather across the globe will get more chaotic. All across the globe we will start seeing weird weather, including both unusually cold seasons and unusually hot and wetter and drier years. This might seem counter intuitive but if you imagine a pot very slowly heating up, you'd get different regions of cold and hot until the pot reaches equalibrium.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Will there be a particular region where the higher average warming is concentrated? Or will all regions tend to be, on average, warmer (ignoring the higher variation)?
  - orwin 4y ago
    Landmass especially. The increase in average temperature will concentrate over landmasses. Depending on how fast the artic ice cap melt, we could see the average temperature over a year in western europe drop, while increasing over the summer months. But climate is weird, that's why the less we perturb it, the better we get.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      What about small landmasses, like Japan or Indonesia?
      - orwin 4y ago
        I'm not an expert, i merely did a lot of research during Covid (nothing better to do tbh), and since i've never asked myself the question, i never researched islands specifically. I think you might be able to find NASA maps and compare the average temperature in 1991 and today, you'll have your response. Sorry if i can't be more helpful.

csdvrx 4y ago

threeseed 4y ago
It is not fear mongering. The costs of climate change are going to run into the trillions and the people most affected will be the poor and the disadvantaged. And any positives e.g. better shipping from APAC to Europe (relatively useless) pale in comparison to the negatives e.g. all of the Pacific islands disappearing.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  > And any positives e.g. better shipping from APAC to Europe (relatively useless) Shipping volumes say otherwise! > pale in comparison to the negatives e.g. all of the Pacific islands disappearing. That's a postulate that remains to be proven. If we are talking about usable landmasses, a few islands disappearing is dwarfed by the unthawing of Siberia + if you prefer islands, the new islands that will be made from Antarctica. There will be costs, and there will be gains. > the people most affected will be the poor and the disadvantaged. The opportunity of a mass migration from poor and mismanaged countries to better run countries or mostly empty places is a once-in-a-millenium event - last seen with Christopher Columbus in America.

modernpink 4y ago

The focus in climate change discourse seems to be all about prevention when we've clearly been headed on course for worst case scenario several degree rise the whole time. Emissions have not even peaked yet with China, India and the rest of the third world essentially outdoing all the progress the first world has made over the past decades. Not to mention the coming surge in population of Africa in the coming decades who will all want material lifestyles for themselves.

Loic 4y ago
In Germany, the richest 10% of the population is producing 50% of the CO2. At the world level, the richest 1% is producing double of the poorest 50%. We should not talk about the increase coming from other countries, we should already start with us reducing our impact and adapt. The problem is that we all have/find good excuses not to change our behavior.
- junofan 4y ago
  It’s trivial to show that doesn’t solve the problem.
- 4gotunameagain 4y ago
  China together with India account for 35% percent of the world's CO2 emissions, I think it is fair to complain about them a bit.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    That's less than their population share though.
    - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
      yes, because vast swaths of these countries live in extreme poverty, not because of environmental consciousness. we are talking about people who swim next to corpses in the ganges river.