4 ms·

> it's absurd to claim there's an important threshold of increase whilst also claiming the baseline doesn't matter. Because neither is true and neither is clai

> it's absurd to claim there's an important threshold of increase whilst also claiming the baseline doesn't matter. Because neither is true and neither is claimed. There are no important threshold and baseline will obviously shift what you are looking at. The threshold put forwards in conference (1.5°C or 2°C) are a communication device because it's easier to draw a line and explain that to people. They are only targets and are not the most important objectives set during climate conferences (the Paris agreement would absolutely not be voided by crossing 1.5°C by the way, that's nonsense). The fact is warming is obviously a continuous effect and the higher you go the more impact it has.

mike_hearn 2y ago
1.5 degrees is not only written into international agreements, it gets saturation media coverage. The UN claims that above 1.5 degrees there are multiple tipping points that get triggered. It's universally presented as being of critical import, whether you agree with that or not. > The fact is warming is obviously a continuous effect and the higher you go the more impact it has. Are you sure that's a fact, or is it a communication device someone used on you? Look at the graphs Mann presents in the Hossenfelder video and you'll note that temperature increase isn't continuous, it's more like a step function with long plateaus, with the steps aligning with factors like El Niño. The problem with making up scientific-sounding thresholds for communication is that it's a form of the noble lie and it always ends badly. As Hossenfelder points out, the fighting over whether this threshold was crossed or not is a "science communication disaster". It's like the manager who pretends the company will go bankrupt on December 10th if everyone doesn't ship the product by that date, when in reality no such bankruptcy will occur and he just likes seeing everyone run around in a frenzy, increasing profits. The people doing it believe it's justified but that doesn't change the core dishonesty of the approach and inevitably, when it's revealed that the claims are lies, they will assume all such claims from you are lies. Why fret about any deadline ever again once you discover one of them was fake?
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > The UN claims that above 1.5 degrees there are multiple tipping points that get triggered. No, that's factually untrue. Go read the IPCC report which is the official communication of the UN on global warming. Absolutely nothing in it implies that 1.5°C is a tipping point. There is definitely effects with cliff like behaviour (permarfrost melting) but there is nothing magical about 1.5°C. > Look at the graphs Mann presents in the Hossenfelder video and you'll note that temperature increase isn't continuous, it's more like a step function with long plateaus, with the steps aligning with factors like El Niño. That's not what continuous means here. It's to be understood as opposite to step-wise. Increase has efffect which varies with the amount in a mostly continuous manner. That's why thresholds are necessary arbitrary. There is no plateau, it's oscillation with a trend because seasons. [0] Anyway, no one is saying that temperature increase linearily. That's why we always talk about average increase. That's implied when people talk about degree above a baseline. If you don't realise that, you will have hard time following a discussion about the climate. [0] https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2024/08/paris-agreement-thresholds-crossed.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2024/08/paris-agreement-thr... > Why fret about any deadline ever again once you discover one of them was fake? Nobody is fretting about deadlines. You are widely misunderstanding the issue if you think the discussion is about when. It's akin to asking when should we stop pouring poison in the river to which the answer is obviously as soon as possible. > Are you sure that's a fact, or is it a communication device someone used on you? I am old enough to read papers myself. Stop insulting me.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/degrees-matter https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/d... > "Exceeding 1.5°C could also trigger multiple climate tipping points — such as breakdowns of major ocean circulation systems, abrupt thawing of boreal permafrost, and collapse of tropical coral reef systems — with abrupt, irreversible, and dangerous impacts for humanity" It helpfully comes with a citation of a paper in Science which has the exact same title, "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 > "Six CTPs become likely (with a further four possible) within the Paris Agreement range of 1.5 to <2°C warming, including collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, die-off of low-latitude coral reefs, and widespread abrupt permafrost thaw."

mike_hearn 2y ago

1.5 degrees is not only written into international agreements, it gets saturation media coverage. The UN claims that above 1.5 degrees there are multiple tipping points that get triggered. It's universally presented as being of critical import, whether you agree with that or not. > The fact is warming is obviously a continuous effect and the higher you go the more impact it has. Are you sure that's a fact, or is it a communication device someone used on you? Look at the graphs Mann presents in the Hossenfelder video and you'll note that temperature increase isn't continuous, it's more like a step function with long plateaus, with the steps aligning with factors like El Niño. The problem with making up scientific-sounding thresholds for communication is that it's a form of the noble lie and it always ends badly. As Hossenfelder points out, the fighting over whether this threshold was crossed or not is a "science communication disaster". It's like the manager who pretends the company will go bankrupt on December 10th if everyone doesn't ship the product by that date, when in reality no such bankruptcy will occur and he just likes seeing everyone run around in a frenzy, increasing profits. The people doing it believe it's justified but that doesn't change the core dishonesty of the approach and inevitably, when it's revealed that the claims are lies, they will assume all such claims from you are lies. Why fret about any deadline ever again once you discover one of them was fake?

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> The UN claims that above 1.5 degrees there are multiple tipping points that get triggered. No, that's factually untrue. Go read the IPCC report which is the official communication of the UN on global warming. Absolutely nothing in it implies that 1.5°C is a tipping point. There is definitely effects with cliff like behaviour (permarfrost melting) but there is nothing magical about 1.5°C. > Look at the graphs Mann presents in the Hossenfelder video and you'll note that temperature increase isn't continuous, it's more like a step function with long plateaus, with the steps aligning with factors like El Niño. That's not what continuous means here. It's to be understood as opposite to step-wise. Increase has efffect which varies with the amount in a mostly continuous manner. That's why thresholds are necessary arbitrary. There is no plateau, it's oscillation with a trend because seasons. [0] Anyway, no one is saying that temperature increase linearily. That's why we always talk about average increase. That's implied when people talk about degree above a baseline. If you don't realise that, you will have hard time following a discussion about the climate. [0] https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2024/08/paris-agreement-thresholds-crossed.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2024/08/paris-agreement-thr... > Why fret about any deadline ever again once you discover one of them was fake? Nobody is fretting about deadlines. You are widely misunderstanding the issue if you think the discussion is about when. It's akin to asking when should we stop pouring poison in the river to which the answer is obviously as soon as possible. > Are you sure that's a fact, or is it a communication device someone used on you? I am old enough to read papers myself. Stop insulting me.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/degrees-matter https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/d... > "Exceeding 1.5°C could also trigger multiple climate tipping points — such as breakdowns of major ocean circulation systems, abrupt thawing of boreal permafrost, and collapse of tropical coral reef systems — with abrupt, irreversible, and dangerous impacts for humanity" It helpfully comes with a citation of a paper in Science which has the exact same title, "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 > "Six CTPs become likely (with a further four possible) within the Paris Agreement range of 1.5 to <2°C warming, including collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, die-off of low-latitude coral reefs, and widespread abrupt permafrost thaw."