3 ms·

> 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

> 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."
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/d https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/d... This page whole purpose is to explain why the Paris agreement decided to put a goal at 1.5°C and in this context, they list what could happen if this threshold is crossed. >> "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." Your own quote actually talks about what I'm saying from the start. It's a range with effects becoming more severe and likely as temperature increase hence the range of 1.5°C to 2°C. They talk about another one at 2.6°C a line latter. That goes directely against your claim that the focus is on 1.5°C as some kind of deadline.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    You accept that what I said about the UN isn't factually untrue - this is progress. Let's keep going. We both agree that they say more warming is worse. Do you also now accept that the 1.5C figure (or 1.5-2.0 range) isn't merely a communication device set at an arbitrary threshold for political reasons, but one that appears in scientific papers that claim there are non-linear responses involved? If so, we can now revisit the two original points to find the remaining areas of disagreement: 1. It doesn't make sense to talk about increase if you don't define what it's relative to regardless of whether it's a point or a range, because arguments about tipping points or extreme weather are all based on physics and chemistry that depends on absolute temperatures, not deltas. 2. There are famous climatologists making claims like 1970 being pre-industrial or that baselines don't matter, and the only people pushing back on him are outsiders. Small children know that 1970 is not "pre industrial". Does that problem matter to you?
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
      > Do you also now accept that the 1.5C figure (or 1.5-2.0 range) isn't merely a communication device set at an arbitrary threshold for political reasons, but one that appears in scientific papers that claim there are non-linear responses involved? Your own quote in your previous comments contradicts that. I can’t really make sense of your two questions. Your 1 entirely misses the point. Yes, the whole thing is about deltas. Sorry, I’m going to do more productive things with my time. I hope I gave you or an eventual reader some elements to ponder. If not, that’s fine too.

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."

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/d https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/d... This page whole purpose is to explain why the Paris agreement decided to put a goal at 1.5°C and in this context, they list what could happen if this threshold is crossed. >> "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." Your own quote actually talks about what I'm saying from the start. It's a range with effects becoming more severe and likely as temperature increase hence the range of 1.5°C to 2°C. They talk about another one at 2.6°C a line latter. That goes directely against your claim that the focus is on 1.5°C as some kind of deadline.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  You accept that what I said about the UN isn't factually untrue - this is progress. Let's keep going. We both agree that they say more warming is worse. Do you also now accept that the 1.5C figure (or 1.5-2.0 range) isn't merely a communication device set at an arbitrary threshold for political reasons, but one that appears in scientific papers that claim there are non-linear responses involved? If so, we can now revisit the two original points to find the remaining areas of disagreement: 1. It doesn't make sense to talk about increase if you don't define what it's relative to regardless of whether it's a point or a range, because arguments about tipping points or extreme weather are all based on physics and chemistry that depends on absolute temperatures, not deltas. 2. There are famous climatologists making claims like 1970 being pre-industrial or that baselines don't matter, and the only people pushing back on him are outsiders. Small children know that 1970 is not "pre industrial". Does that problem matter to you?
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    > Do you also now accept that the 1.5C figure (or 1.5-2.0 range) isn't merely a communication device set at an arbitrary threshold for political reasons, but one that appears in scientific papers that claim there are non-linear responses involved? Your own quote in your previous comments contradicts that. I can’t really make sense of your two questions. Your 1 entirely misses the point. Yes, the whole thing is about deltas. Sorry, I’m going to do more productive things with my time. I hope I gave you or an eventual reader some elements to ponder. If not, that’s fine too.