3 ms·

I don't get the reason for skepticism, when this is coming from scientists who've been studying the field for many years, and have been making predictions that

I don't get the reason for skepticism, when this is coming from scientists who've been studying the field for many years, and have been making predictions that have been coming true. It's like an avalanche. After it starts you can't stop it or get all that snow back on the mountain; it has to get to level ground, melt (if it gets warm enough) and go through an entire cycle that takes time. So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself. I don't see it as doom, just something inevitable, which we helped to cause. And it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money, in every instance, as acceptance would be bad for business.

BurningFrog 2y ago
Well, look at this section: > Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study. I count to 3 maybes only there: 1. tipping points "could be triggered by much lower temperatures" 2. "some tipping points potentially already reached" 3. "according to a new study" Number 1 and 2 says that this may possibly happen, not that it will! Number 3 is the worst. Many - probably most - new studies with unexpected results turn out to be wrong, as the Replication Crisis has painfully taught us. They also get the most press, because "new study confirms what we thought" stories don't go viral. > it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money That's absolutely not true in science or publishing. The most sensational results get the most attention and grants and ad dollars.
- defrost 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw310822 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - defrost 2y ago
      I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with the original text - but it contains NO maybes. BurningFrog hasn't correctly read it and is arguing against a strawmanned version of it (it may be incorrect for other reasons). The original: https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-realized https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea... states (correctly or not): Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study. In English as a first language that's an assertion that * Climate tipping points [...] could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought implying that they are real and will hapen at some threshold but there is now evidence or a model that suggets the thresholds may be lower than once thought. The incorrect interpretation by BurningFrog above was that > that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will! whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed. The only "maybe" was a suspicion that these thresholds could be even lower than thought and a Rubicon may have been crossed already - but there was zero uncertainity expressed wrt existence and potential to be crossed.
      - throw310822 2y ago
        > the incorrect interpretation by BurningFrog above was that >> that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will! > whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed. It will happen IF thresholds are crossed. And crucially, we don't know where the thresholds are. So it could happen. "The Empire State Building WILL fall over WHEN it tips beyond some threshold" is not saying that it will fall over, means that it could fall over. And yes, also in this case the threshold is real.
throw310822 2y ago
> So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself. Humanity would be better off living at the bottom of the ocean than on any other planet; and to think that climate change could make earth less hospitable than any other planet is just absurd. So this is an incredibly naive statement.
- pests 2y ago
  Yes agreed. There is no chance that humans are completely wiped out. We, or our ancestors, by definition have survived until today though multiple actual ice ages. We've survived though massive floods and glaciers and who knows what else. On top of that, the closer we get to doomsday the more people will care. I don't know where I heard it, but there's a saying that "capitalism can solve anything it just waits until the last minute". That when the time comes enough money and resources will be poured into the solutions(s) that we can fix it. When is that time? When profits are threatened and our continued way of existence.

BurningFrog 2y ago

Well, look at this section: > Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study. I count to 3 maybes only there: 1. tipping points "could be triggered by much lower temperatures" 2. "some tipping points potentially already reached" 3. "according to a new study" Number 1 and 2 says that this may possibly happen, not that it will! Number 3 is the worst. Many - probably most - new studies with unexpected results turn out to be wrong, as the Replication Crisis has painfully taught us. They also get the most press, because "new study confirms what we thought" stories don't go viral. > it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money That's absolutely not true in science or publishing. The most sensational results get the most attention and grants and ad dollars.

defrost 2y ago
[flagged]
- throw310822 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - defrost 2y ago
    I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with the original text - but it contains NO maybes. BurningFrog hasn't correctly read it and is arguing against a strawmanned version of it (it may be incorrect for other reasons). The original: https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-realized https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea... states (correctly or not): Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study. In English as a first language that's an assertion that * Climate tipping points [...] could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought implying that they are real and will hapen at some threshold but there is now evidence or a model that suggets the thresholds may be lower than once thought. The incorrect interpretation by BurningFrog above was that > that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will! whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed. The only "maybe" was a suspicion that these thresholds could be even lower than thought and a Rubicon may have been crossed already - but there was zero uncertainity expressed wrt existence and potential to be crossed.
    - throw310822 2y ago
      > the incorrect interpretation by BurningFrog above was that >> that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will! > whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed. It will happen IF thresholds are crossed. And crucially, we don't know where the thresholds are. So it could happen. "The Empire State Building WILL fall over WHEN it tips beyond some threshold" is not saying that it will fall over, means that it could fall over. And yes, also in this case the threshold is real.

throw310822 2y ago

> So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself. Humanity would be better off living at the bottom of the ocean than on any other planet; and to think that climate change could make earth less hospitable than any other planet is just absurd. So this is an incredibly naive statement.

pests 2y ago
Yes agreed. There is no chance that humans are completely wiped out. We, or our ancestors, by definition have survived until today though multiple actual ice ages. We've survived though massive floods and glaciers and who knows what else. On top of that, the closer we get to doomsday the more people will care. I don't know where I heard it, but there's a saying that "capitalism can solve anything it just waits until the last minute". That when the time comes enough money and resources will be poured into the solutions(s) that we can fix it. When is that time? When profits are threatened and our continued way of existence.