6 ms·

Global sea surface temperature for all of 2023 have been above 2 standard deviations of the 1982-2011 mean: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https

Global sea surface temperature for all of 2023 have been above 2 standard deviations of the 1982-2011 mean: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Warming temperatures seem linked to several major climate tipping points. This new study suggests it may disable the global ocean circulation system within just three decades: https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-change-ocean-circulation-collapse-antarctica https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-change-ocean-circulat... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05762-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05762-w https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_...

bmitc 3y ago
It's amazing but harrowing that we can study this stuff but somehow can't get it together enough to get along and stop destroying the planet.
- 0zemp2c 3y ago
  "raising awareness" doesn't require personal sacrifice
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  Those with the power to change things have the power to suffer no negative effects.
  - cardamomo 3y ago
    I'd suggest a slight edit to this: Those with the power to change things believe they have the power to suffer no negative effects.
    - armitron 3y ago
      Billionaires can already live in underground luxury bunkers that can withstand a nuclear Armageddon for decades. With accelerating tech, their ability to opt out of global catastrophic risks also accelerates. Not so for the rest of us.
      - cardamomo 3y ago
        I think that's what they believe, but I buy Douglas Rushkoff's argument that this is a collective illusion on the part of the billionaire class. See https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fantasies-of-the-tech-billionaires/ https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fa...
      - dghlsakjg 3y ago
        There’s a lot of Russian billionaires discovering that their freedoms aren’t as unlimited as they thought…
      - jgraettinger1 3y ago
        Don’t you think billionaires would also rather sip cocktails on a beautiful beach vs their concrete bunker? There’s only so much you can do to spruce up a bunker. They’re not rooting for global warming, as a class.
  - zpeti 3y ago
    This is a ridiculous take. You realise Pakistan is collapsing right now because Europe bought all the LNG and it’s super expensive now? I.e if you start taxing energy more or making it less abundant you will collapse societies. How about France? The Arab springs? This is not about the elites. Forcing everyone into less consumption will basically lead to revolutions. The only way out of this is technology. You can’t force people into more expensive food and living conditions. You have to fail forwards. Unfortunately it seems like most environmentalists prefer complete collapse of society, and depopulation, to technological progress Edit: and btw, how are you gonna stop China building coal plants? Diplomacy? Seems unlikely to work. Military prevention?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  There are quite a few billion people looking forward to the convenience of their own vehicle and living in their own detached house and visiting tropical destinations and eating avocados all year. I do not think any leader is going to be able to placate the population by telling them to consume less to maybe help future generations.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - is_true 3y ago
    Tax energy accordingly, that's it
    - pgrote 3y ago
      And then what?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Best of luck winning with that campaign slogan.
      - stemlord 3y ago
        They have my vote
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      I'm not sure taxing things is the way to fundamentally alter the way of living in almost every society on the planet.
      - twoodfin 3y ago
        Markets & incentives are the only things that ever have.
  - dan-robertson 3y ago
    Yeah, fortunately it looks like there may be things that can be done which reduce GHG emissions while also enabling economic development. It’s already been the case for a while that developed countries have continued to grow while their emissions have decreased (even when accounting for trade – ie ‘offshoring’ of emissions). Hopefully developing countries will be able to better take advantage of the cheaper energy[1] provided by solar to develop faster. They don’t need to go through the same GHG-heavy steps much like they don’t need to develop a pony express or telegraph network. Though my understanding of economic development is that there are no east recipes to make it happen so I don’t really know how it will go. Note that I’m only really talking about GHG emissions and not other kinds of pollution or environmental harm. [1] obviously the advantage may not be so great (or even an advantage) if labour costs are different or if coal plants are cheaper. It still has a disadvantage of all costs being weighted towards installation time and the advantage of not requiring the whole thing to be installed at once.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - chasebank 3y ago
    You’re most definitely right in the grand scheme of things. I’m not so sure that’s what people are referring to when they want to “save the planet”.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Humans aren't in any danger of going extinct, either.
    - nly 3y ago
      Exactly, many hundreds of millions will just suffer immeasurably and see horrible and painful deaths.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    That isn't the point, is not true, and is ultimately meaningless becuase if you mean the universe will carry on, then yes of course it will.
- helge9210 3y ago
  Planet isn't going to be destroyed. Some areas might become uninhabitable (like Sahara desert or Arabian peninsula), but some other areas might end up better suited for human life or more desirable.
7402 3y ago
> Global sea surface temperature for all of 2023 have been above 2 standard deviations of the 1982-2011 mean I'm not arguing about the consequences of this, but it doesn't mean much to say that a normal distribution exceeds the mean by 2 standard deviations 2.1% of the time - that's mathematics, not climatology. It's been about 41 years since 1982, and 1 / 41 = 2.4%. It's the positive trend that's significant, not the simple fact of variation.
- pveierland 3y ago
  I get your point, however in this case the trend is clearly positive: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/sea-surface-temperature https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/sea-surface...
- adammarples 3y ago
  I might be wrong but I don't think that data on a clear linear trend is actually normally distributed at all
tayo42 3y ago
surprised, i need to dig into the links, but California had a cold winter this year and even last year I remember the water being on the chilly side. I meant to dig into this a bit more, but bouys off the coast showed the water was 3 degrees colder then last year. mid 50s in san diego.
brutusborn 3y ago
That study doesn’t say that global circulation will be disabled. And the article suggests that fears of circulation stopping in the northern hemisphere, based on previous observations, were overblown. Climate is changing, but no one is predicting global scale tipping points to be reached until next century.

bmitc 3y ago

It's amazing but harrowing that we can study this stuff but somehow can't get it together enough to get along and stop destroying the planet.

0zemp2c 3y ago
"raising awareness" doesn't require personal sacrifice
atleastoptimal 3y ago
Those with the power to change things have the power to suffer no negative effects.
- cardamomo 3y ago
  I'd suggest a slight edit to this: Those with the power to change things believe they have the power to suffer no negative effects.
  - armitron 3y ago
    Billionaires can already live in underground luxury bunkers that can withstand a nuclear Armageddon for decades. With accelerating tech, their ability to opt out of global catastrophic risks also accelerates. Not so for the rest of us.
    - cardamomo 3y ago
      I think that's what they believe, but I buy Douglas Rushkoff's argument that this is a collective illusion on the part of the billionaire class. See https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fantasies-of-the-tech-billionaires/ https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fa...
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      There’s a lot of Russian billionaires discovering that their freedoms aren’t as unlimited as they thought…
    - jgraettinger1 3y ago
      Don’t you think billionaires would also rather sip cocktails on a beautiful beach vs their concrete bunker? There’s only so much you can do to spruce up a bunker. They’re not rooting for global warming, as a class.
- zpeti 3y ago
  This is a ridiculous take. You realise Pakistan is collapsing right now because Europe bought all the LNG and it’s super expensive now? I.e if you start taxing energy more or making it less abundant you will collapse societies. How about France? The Arab springs? This is not about the elites. Forcing everyone into less consumption will basically lead to revolutions. The only way out of this is technology. You can’t force people into more expensive food and living conditions. You have to fail forwards. Unfortunately it seems like most environmentalists prefer complete collapse of society, and depopulation, to technological progress Edit: and btw, how are you gonna stop China building coal plants? Diplomacy? Seems unlikely to work. Military prevention?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 3y ago
There are quite a few billion people looking forward to the convenience of their own vehicle and living in their own detached house and visiting tropical destinations and eating avocados all year. I do not think any leader is going to be able to placate the population by telling them to consume less to maybe help future generations.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- is_true 3y ago
  Tax energy accordingly, that's it
  - pgrote 3y ago
    And then what?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Best of luck winning with that campaign slogan.
    - stemlord 3y ago
      They have my vote
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    I'm not sure taxing things is the way to fundamentally alter the way of living in almost every society on the planet.
    - twoodfin 3y ago
      Markets & incentives are the only things that ever have.
- dan-robertson 3y ago
  Yeah, fortunately it looks like there may be things that can be done which reduce GHG emissions while also enabling economic development. It’s already been the case for a while that developed countries have continued to grow while their emissions have decreased (even when accounting for trade – ie ‘offshoring’ of emissions). Hopefully developing countries will be able to better take advantage of the cheaper energy[1] provided by solar to develop faster. They don’t need to go through the same GHG-heavy steps much like they don’t need to develop a pony express or telegraph network. Though my understanding of economic development is that there are no east recipes to make it happen so I don’t really know how it will go. Note that I’m only really talking about GHG emissions and not other kinds of pollution or environmental harm. [1] obviously the advantage may not be so great (or even an advantage) if labour costs are different or if coal plants are cheaper. It still has a disadvantage of all costs being weighted towards installation time and the advantage of not requiring the whole thing to be installed at once.
surgical_fire 3y ago
[flagged]
- chasebank 3y ago
  You’re most definitely right in the grand scheme of things. I’m not so sure that’s what people are referring to when they want to “save the planet”.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Humans aren't in any danger of going extinct, either.
  - nly 3y ago
    Exactly, many hundreds of millions will just suffer immeasurably and see horrible and painful deaths.
- bmitc 3y ago
  That isn't the point, is not true, and is ultimately meaningless becuase if you mean the universe will carry on, then yes of course it will.
helge9210 3y ago
Planet isn't going to be destroyed. Some areas might become uninhabitable (like Sahara desert or Arabian peninsula), but some other areas might end up better suited for human life or more desirable.

7402 3y ago

> Global sea surface temperature for all of 2023 have been above 2 standard deviations of the 1982-2011 mean I'm not arguing about the consequences of this, but it doesn't mean much to say that a normal distribution exceeds the mean by 2 standard deviations 2.1% of the time - that's mathematics, not climatology. It's been about 41 years since 1982, and 1 / 41 = 2.4%. It's the positive trend that's significant, not the simple fact of variation.

pveierland 3y ago
I get your point, however in this case the trend is clearly positive: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/sea-surface-temperature https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/sea-surface...
adammarples 3y ago
I might be wrong but I don't think that data on a clear linear trend is actually normally distributed at all

tayo42 3y ago

surprised, i need to dig into the links, but California had a cold winter this year and even last year I remember the water being on the chilly side. I meant to dig into this a bit more, but bouys off the coast showed the water was 3 degrees colder then last year. mid 50s in san diego.

brutusborn 3y ago

That study doesn’t say that global circulation will be disabled. And the article suggests that fears of circulation stopping in the northern hemisphere, based on previous observations, were overblown. Climate is changing, but no one is predicting global scale tipping points to be reached until next century.