6 ms·

On microplastics I agree, but on climate change the issue is almost reversed. We have tons of high profile research coming out all the time that even our worst

On microplastics I agree, but on climate change the issue is almost reversed. We have tons of high profile research coming out all the time that even our worst case models were too optimistic and we are bound for a shitshow of unimaginable proportions. This shouldn't come as a surprise for people who know how the IPCC reports are created (sort of a least common denominator between science, politics and lobbyists). So every time they say official "worst case" model, that is the worst case that the fossil industry is willing to admit. And that is already pretty bad. What we're actually going to experience could very well amount to a civilisation-ending event. Especially if oceans keep acidifying, which is a highly overlooked doomsday gun and could not just end modern civilisation, but actually kill us and most other land based oxygen breathing creatures. We even know this has happened once already, most likely from a combination of impact events and volcanism. But today's CO2 emission rate is an order of magnitude greater than it was back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...

bryanlarsen 2y ago
The worst case used to be 6.5 degrees. The worst case has been revised down to ~4 degrees.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  The ocean temperature data from the last year is suggesting that there are significant problems in the climate models and not in a happy direction. I try not to dwell on this subject, but I’m increasingly glad that I never wanted children.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    You're missing the forest for the trees. The primary factor influencing warming is CO2 emissions. The rate of emissions is expected to peak in 2024. That's much better than earlier worst case models that were based on continually increasing emissions. So yes, the models miscalculated some secondary factors. But the primary factor is still primary.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      Why are emissions expected to peak in 2024? Are people going to fly or drive less miles? Are we going to live in smaller, more energy efficient houses? Are we going to consume less compute resources? I’m sure we will deploy more renewables; we have certainly seen impressive performance there, but it has supplemented rather than replaced carbon-based sources so far. I believe there are also a lot of new starts for natural gas power plants in the US to support power intensive AI needs. And coal use world wide is still quite high. I do agree that it would be encouraging to see a decrease in emissions (though I suspect we may have already passed some points of no return), but we have not yet seen the peak and I do not understand why one would believe that next year will be better than this year. A solution will require actual collective action that has proven infeasible for my entire life.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Biggest impact is wind power replacing carbon sources. A close second is solar power. EV's are a distant but non negligible third. https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-emissions-start-falling https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-e...
        silverquiet 2y ago
        It is certainly worth hoping for, but I will not believe it until I see it. Until now, we have remained on a dire course.
        ffsm8 2y ago
        First time I hear that claim as well. The only "peak" I'm aware of is coal burning for electricity. that is expected to go down going forward, but that's not peak CO2, as coal engines are just one source of CO2 and not even the biggest contributer. Misinformation is big with everything related to climate change as usual, so I kinda doubt we're anything close to peak CO2, but I'll keep checking the global CO2 averages. Maybe it'll go down from 450 again. It'd be great if itc went back to 290 (thats what it was before the industrial revolution, supposedly)... But I'm not expecting to see any reduction within my lifetime
- sigmoid10 2y ago
  The RPC8.5 scenario is still labelled "avoid at all costs" in the report, while research over the past two decades [1] suggests that this is the path we are actually on right now. Bear in mind that this is already a doomsday scenario, just one that even the fossil industry and politicians admit to. The real outcome is likely to be much worse. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443890/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443890/https:/...
corinn3 2y ago
[dead]

bryanlarsen 2y ago

The worst case used to be 6.5 degrees. The worst case has been revised down to ~4 degrees.

silverquiet 2y ago
The ocean temperature data from the last year is suggesting that there are significant problems in the climate models and not in a happy direction. I try not to dwell on this subject, but I’m increasingly glad that I never wanted children.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  You're missing the forest for the trees. The primary factor influencing warming is CO2 emissions. The rate of emissions is expected to peak in 2024. That's much better than earlier worst case models that were based on continually increasing emissions. So yes, the models miscalculated some secondary factors. But the primary factor is still primary.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    Why are emissions expected to peak in 2024? Are people going to fly or drive less miles? Are we going to live in smaller, more energy efficient houses? Are we going to consume less compute resources? I’m sure we will deploy more renewables; we have certainly seen impressive performance there, but it has supplemented rather than replaced carbon-based sources so far. I believe there are also a lot of new starts for natural gas power plants in the US to support power intensive AI needs. And coal use world wide is still quite high. I do agree that it would be encouraging to see a decrease in emissions (though I suspect we may have already passed some points of no return), but we have not yet seen the peak and I do not understand why one would believe that next year will be better than this year. A solution will require actual collective action that has proven infeasible for my entire life.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Biggest impact is wind power replacing carbon sources. A close second is solar power. EV's are a distant but non negligible third. https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-emissions-start-falling https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-e...
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        It is certainly worth hoping for, but I will not believe it until I see it. Until now, we have remained on a dire course.
        ffsm8 2y ago
        First time I hear that claim as well. The only "peak" I'm aware of is coal burning for electricity. that is expected to go down going forward, but that's not peak CO2, as coal engines are just one source of CO2 and not even the biggest contributer. Misinformation is big with everything related to climate change as usual, so I kinda doubt we're anything close to peak CO2, but I'll keep checking the global CO2 averages. Maybe it'll go down from 450 again. It'd be great if itc went back to 290 (thats what it was before the industrial revolution, supposedly)... But I'm not expecting to see any reduction within my lifetime
sigmoid10 2y ago
The RPC8.5 scenario is still labelled "avoid at all costs" in the report, while research over the past two decades [1] suggests that this is the path we are actually on right now. Bear in mind that this is already a doomsday scenario, just one that even the fossil industry and politicians admit to. The real outcome is likely to be much worse. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443890/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443890/https:/...

corinn3 2y ago

[dead]