3 ms·

I don't think the tipping points are a decade away. I think we've already surpassed them. In the sense that "hey let's just stop buying all oil today" is not fe

I don't think the tipping points are a decade away. I think we've already surpassed them. In the sense that "hey let's just stop buying all oil today" is not feasible. In other words there's no way we can ramp down fast enough to prevent another degree of warming. We are already past the point of no (practical) return. Obviously that doesn't mean we give up, 2 degs of warming is better than 3. But we're long (long) past the point where we can pretend we can "avoid the oncoming train". So get used to more extreme events every year. Hotter hot, wetter wet, drier dry. More energy in the atmosphere means more energetic weather.

exe34 2y ago
if 3 can make somebody richer than 2, we'll get 3.
- bruce511 2y ago
  That's true. All of this is driven by greed. "Clinate denial " is predicated on the basis of "hey, you tell me the earth is going bad in a few decades, but to admit that costs me money and lifestyle now". If we can pretend it's not happening then we don't need to change. And those making the most money from the harmful behaviors are leading the charge.
mike_hearn 2y ago
> More energy in the atmosphere means more energetic weather. Although that's tautologically true, please be aware that "accumulated cyclone energy" (i.e. storm energy) is a tracked metric and hasn't moved since records began 50 years ago: https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=northernhemisphere https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch... In practice the climate is quite complex and datasets often don't neatly fall into line with each other. If you want to argue that there's a problem with energetic weather some other metric would be needed. Watch out though for economic indexes that don't control for population growth or apply deflators correctly.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Indeed.. temperature differences are what drives weather. If the planet is uniformly warmer, does that affect temperature differences? It might even make the differences lesser if the warming effect is stronger in cool places or at night. Which is the case, as I understand it.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Higher temperatures of air and water lead to greater evaporation and greater precipitation. That causes problems for everything from cities to farms.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Ah I see, so everything becomes more "steamy".
- bruce511 2y ago
  Yes, it's a gross simplification. But it serves a purpose. It's not just a question of major storms though. It's a question of general day to day weather. Hot months are hotter, wet months are wetter, cold spells are colder. Every year is bringing "...est on record" everywhere you look. Everyday weather is like a pendulum- and the pendulum is swinging just a bit further with each swing. But you don't need to get bogged down by the science. You don't even need the numbers. If you're prepared to acknowledge it at all, it's evident simply by looking outside.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Respectfully, it wasn't a gross simplification. The underlying claims in both directions are already simple. It was just incorrect. > But it serves a purpose. Purpose? What purpose? Honestly, this stuff really gets my goat. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but around half of the US population doesn't agree that climate changes are driven primarily by humans [1], and over time the proportion of people saying climate change is a serious problem have gone down, not up. This is despite absolutely saturation level messaging by every part society that's allowed to speak. Despite being confined to obscure blogs climate skeptics appear to be winning, and they're doing it through a simple formula: 1. Take a claim made by journalists/politicians/academics/the UN/whatever. 2. Present documentary evidence that the claim is wrong. Sometimes a graph from a government website, sometimes data from a paper, sometimes historical evidence or data they collected themselves. 3. Say it isn't a mistake but rather deliberate lies told in aid of a specific social agenda. So when you say the weather is getting more energetic, I show you it's not getting more energetic, and you accept that you were wrong but say "It serves a purpose", what you're doing is illustrating and to some extent confirming all the worst conspiracy theories of the skeptics. You're saying it's OK to say untrue things about the climate if it's in aid of some (unarticulated) other goal. > Every year is bringing "...est on record" everywhere you look. Given that you just made a claim about storm energy that isn't correct, presumably found in those places that you look, one should consider the possibility that claims we hear about records might also be gross oversimplifications told to serve a purpose. [1] https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EPIC-factsheets.pdf https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EPIC-factsheet...

exe34 2y ago

if 3 can make somebody richer than 2, we'll get 3.

bruce511 2y ago
That's true. All of this is driven by greed. "Clinate denial " is predicated on the basis of "hey, you tell me the earth is going bad in a few decades, but to admit that costs me money and lifestyle now". If we can pretend it's not happening then we don't need to change. And those making the most money from the harmful behaviors are leading the charge.

mike_hearn 2y ago

> More energy in the atmosphere means more energetic weather. Although that's tautologically true, please be aware that "accumulated cyclone energy" (i.e. storm energy) is a tracked metric and hasn't moved since records began 50 years ago: https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=northernhemisphere https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch... In practice the climate is quite complex and datasets often don't neatly fall into line with each other. If you want to argue that there's a problem with energetic weather some other metric would be needed. Watch out though for economic indexes that don't control for population growth or apply deflators correctly.

HPsquared 2y ago
Indeed.. temperature differences are what drives weather. If the planet is uniformly warmer, does that affect temperature differences? It might even make the differences lesser if the warming effect is stronger in cool places or at night. Which is the case, as I understand it.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Higher temperatures of air and water lead to greater evaporation and greater precipitation. That causes problems for everything from cities to farms.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Ah I see, so everything becomes more "steamy".
bruce511 2y ago
Yes, it's a gross simplification. But it serves a purpose. It's not just a question of major storms though. It's a question of general day to day weather. Hot months are hotter, wet months are wetter, cold spells are colder. Every year is bringing "...est on record" everywhere you look. Everyday weather is like a pendulum- and the pendulum is swinging just a bit further with each swing. But you don't need to get bogged down by the science. You don't even need the numbers. If you're prepared to acknowledge it at all, it's evident simply by looking outside.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Respectfully, it wasn't a gross simplification. The underlying claims in both directions are already simple. It was just incorrect. > But it serves a purpose. Purpose? What purpose? Honestly, this stuff really gets my goat. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but around half of the US population doesn't agree that climate changes are driven primarily by humans [1], and over time the proportion of people saying climate change is a serious problem have gone down, not up. This is despite absolutely saturation level messaging by every part society that's allowed to speak. Despite being confined to obscure blogs climate skeptics appear to be winning, and they're doing it through a simple formula: 1. Take a claim made by journalists/politicians/academics/the UN/whatever. 2. Present documentary evidence that the claim is wrong. Sometimes a graph from a government website, sometimes data from a paper, sometimes historical evidence or data they collected themselves. 3. Say it isn't a mistake but rather deliberate lies told in aid of a specific social agenda. So when you say the weather is getting more energetic, I show you it's not getting more energetic, and you accept that you were wrong but say "It serves a purpose", what you're doing is illustrating and to some extent confirming all the worst conspiracy theories of the skeptics. You're saying it's OK to say untrue things about the climate if it's in aid of some (unarticulated) other goal. > Every year is bringing "...est on record" everywhere you look. Given that you just made a claim about storm energy that isn't correct, presumably found in those places that you look, one should consider the possibility that claims we hear about records might also be gross oversimplifications told to serve a purpose. [1] https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EPIC-factsheets.pdf https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EPIC-factsheet...