Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#21

Post by bildung »

jezenesklof wrote: post #15

"Scientifically, this provides strong evidence for declaring a state of planetary emergency, to unleash world action that accelerates the path towards a world that can continue evolving on a stable planet." Talk about weasel words "Exiting the fossil fuel economy is unlikely before 2050, but with temperature already at 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperature, it is likely Earth will cross the 1.5°C guardrail by 2040.…

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez never that said herself, she was paraphrasing young voters.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#22

Post by softwarelimits »

ppf wrote: post #14
softwarelimits wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I humbly ask: What are your qualifications that enable you to come to this conclusion? I would be very interested in studying your publications - where can I find your analysis? Also it would be really very appreciated if you would like to publish the datasets that lead you to this conclusion - would you like to give us a public repo with the data, so we can check your results? Thank you very much!

That's not very humble. His assertions are quite basic, and don't need research-grade qualifications to consider. The earth has certainly prehistorically been much warmer, so nature handled it just fine, and it is an interesting question to consider how much more arable land a warmer earth would have.

Would you please like to add data and evidence to add some substance to your words? It is not enough to just "say something" on the internet - you need to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#23

Post by goodcanadian »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #9

It seems like they are always saying we are on the brink of some "tipping point." Is there an example of any we have already passed?

That is the whole point of the article. It lists NINE that the authors believe we have already passed.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#24

Post by ppf »

softwarelimits wrote: post #22
ppf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not very humble. His assertions are quite basic, and don't need research-grade qualifications to consider. The earth has certainly prehistorically been much warmer, so nature handled it just fine, and it is an interesting question to consider how much more arable land a warmer earth would have.

Would you please like to add data and evidence to add some substance to your words? It is not enough to just "say something" on the internet - you need to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

The only assertion I made is that the earth has been much warmer pre-historically, which is a well-known fact and can easily be verified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#25

Post by Sharlin »

ppf wrote: post #14
softwarelimits wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I humbly ask: What are your qualifications that enable you to come to this conclusion? I would be very interested in studying your publications - where can I find your analysis? Also it would be really very appreciated if you would like to publish the datasets that lead you to this conclusion - would you like to give us a public repo with the data, so we can check your results? Thank you very much!

That's not very humble. His assertions are quite basic, and don't need research-grade qualifications to consider. The earth has certainly prehistorically been much warmer, so nature handled it just fine, and it is an interesting question to consider how much more arable land a warmer earth would have.

Earth has not been considerably warmer prehistorically (a term that, technically speaking, refers to the period between the appearance of tool-using hominins and the invention of written history). If you mean paleontological periods before the appearance of genus Homo, yes, but that's not very relevant given how the GP talked about the human civilization (which, incidentally, did not exist in the prehistoric era either!)

As far as we know, the loss of arable land caused by the climate change (and other anthropogenic environmental changes) far outweighs possible gains elsewhere, and even if it didn't, agricultural land area is not exactly fungible.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#26

Post by leocassarani »

martincollignon wrote: post #6

If you want to do something as a techie, I would suggest helping out projects like the ones found here: https://github.com/topics/climate-change I would also suggest joining communities like https://climateaction.tech/

And if you're eligible to vote in the UK, vote Labour in the December 12th general election: https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/a-green-industrial-revolutio...

Likewise support Green New Deal politicians in the US and elsewhere.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#27

Post by ppf »

Sharlin wrote: post #25
ppf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not very humble. His assertions are quite basic, and don't need research-grade qualifications to consider. The earth has certainly prehistorically been much warmer, so nature handled it just fine, and it is an interesting question to consider how much more arable land a warmer earth would have.

Earth has not been considerably warmer prehistorically (a term that, technically speaking, refers to the period between the appearance of tool-using hominins and the invention of written history). If you mean paleontological periods before the appearance of genus Homo , yes, but that's not very relevant given how the GP talked about the human civilization (which, incidentally, did not exist in the prehistoric era eit…

Ok, I used the wrong word. I was also referring to OP's point that "nature was just fine" - the earth has been up to 12degC warmer than present, before humans could make any impact. My point is that, taken in isolation, a warmer earth is not fundamentally bad, nor new.

As for his point about humans preferring warmer temperatures - hopefully that is self-evident.

>As far as we know, the loss of arable land caused by the climate change (and other anthropogenic environmental changes) far outweighs possible gains elsewhere

Would like to see an analysis of arable land gained vs. lost. This is all purely hypothetical, of course - such a change would be drastic, and as you point out, arable land isn't exactly fungible.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#28

Post by aww_dang »

perfunctory wrote: post #19
martincollignon wrote: post #6

If you want to do something as a techie, I would suggest helping out projects like the ones found here: https://github.com/topics/climate-change I would also suggest joining communities like https://climateaction.tech/

It took me a very long time (years) to come to terms with the idea that as a techie I can't do anything to help climate. Tech projects is just an excuse to stay in my comfort zone. A very uncomfortable realization.

Everyone has power over their consumption choices.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#29

Post by rayiner »

It’s important to note that this does not reflect the consensus scientific view: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25...

> First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.

> I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”

> All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.

Additionally, what is a “planetary state of emergency?” Like global martial law? Because if the tipping point theory is correct, that’s what we have to be talking about, right. It can’t just be a metaphor for “try harder to meet climate change protocols.”

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#30

Post by rayiner »

leocassarani wrote: post #26
martincollignon wrote: post #6

If you want to do something as a techie, I would suggest helping out projects like the ones found here: https://github.com/topics/climate-change I would also suggest joining communities like https://climateaction.tech/

And if you're eligible to vote in the UK, vote Labour in the December 12th general election: https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/a-green-industrial-revolutio... Likewise support Green New Deal politicians in the US and elsewhere.

> Likewise support Green New Deal politicians in the US and elsewhere.

If we are really trying to avert climate change, how is spending trillions on labor unions and guaranteed jobs going to help?

If this was the plot of the movie Armageddon, and there was an asteroid hurtling towards earth, would your planned respond spend pages talking about unions, wealth inequality, indigenous people, and guaranteed healthcare, jobs, and housing? If climate change is really imminent and existential threat that requires “war time mobilization” then how can we afford to water down our response with these tangential things?

Under the Green New Deal you’d spend trillions more a year on healthcare, housing, etc. For that money you could buy up the major oil companies like Exxon (market cap $300 billion) and keep the oil in the ground. You could make the US carbon neutral using existing or near-term CO2 recapture technology. You could bankroll India and China to keep their fossil fuels in the ground and build out fully renewable capacity. You could invest in renewables technology, nuclear, carbon capture at the same time. If you sincerely believed that climate change was an existential crisis, why would you divert 90%+ of the force of the “war time mobilization” on social programs?

In my view, the Green new deal has done incalculable damage to the environmental movement. It is a transparent and cynical attempt to piggy-back traditional left wing politics onto the environmental movement, undermining its credibility and seriousness.

Post reply on HN