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

81–90 of 99 posts

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

#81

Post by shkkmo »

ppf wrote: post #59
shkkmo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we are going to consider absolute effects on biodiversity, direct human activity has already had a significantly worse effect Do you have a source for this or are you just basing it on "common sense" It does toe that Hans have primarily impacted species that tend to sit higher on the food chain. We have caused the extinction of more animals than plants. Rapid warming can kill of plants that can't move quickly mi…

I don't really have a source on that, although I'm also not aware of any particular species that are known to have been wiped out due to the current climate change. It is, however, fairly obvious that humans have had an enormous impact on pretty much every inhabitable part of the earth. Even without climate change, it's plausible that human activity will ultimately destroy most ecosystems. >It is quite conceivable th…

You are the one who made a strong assertion that the potential for extinction caused by rapid global warming is less than what humans have already caused.

I made relatively few assertions and the ones I did make are basic ecological science. I was pointing out that your strong claim was irresponsible given the plausible possibilities and our limited knowledge.

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

#82

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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.

The unions aren't going to let Labour do anything serious about climate change.

The idea of green growth is probably false: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2019.15...

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

#83

Post by rayiner »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, j…

The logic behind the GND is simple: if we don’t do something about this, we’re going to be screwed. People don’t want to do anything about it because they’re afraid it will cost jobs. So make a plan that guarantees them jobs if they do something about it. It’s a political solution to a technical problem. You may not like the politics, but it’s pretty damn logical.

I mean we know the actual logic behind the GND:

> The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.

> “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.

The question is whether there is a logic to it beyond the pretext that motivated it originally. And I don’t think there is. Protecting jobs from displacement as a result of climate change mitigation efforts makes sense. That could be accomplished for a fraction of the price of offering guaranteed housing, jobs, healthcare, higher education, etc.

We are talking about spending trillions a year on social welfare to get maybe $100 billion (at most?) on climate change mitigation. Is that “pretty damn logical?”?)

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

#84

Post by rayiner »

ptah wrote: post #70
rayiner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an article (he interviews someone) collecting facts from sources that represent the scientific consensus.

not as authoritative as the nature journal article that OP is based on: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 it is clearly based on a consensus

The conclusion of the Nature article is not based on scientific consensus.

> This "cascade" of changes sparked by global warming could threaten the existence of human civilisations.

That's not supported by the underlying IPCC report (a 2018 publication that's one of the latest statements of consensus science): https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15...

While the IPCC talks about "tipping points," it does not mean "cascades" that "threaten the existence of human civilization." It's important to understand that what the IPCC means by "tipping points" is certain irreversible changes in things like sea ice coverage, or collapse of maize crops in "certain areas." Those things might be bad, but they don't imply "runaway climate change" or collapse of global agricultural systems, or anything like that. See Table 3.7.

The aggregate effect of these local effects is estimated in box 3.6. For the United States, it says:

> The results for the baseline no-policy case indicate that economic damages along median temperature change and median damages (median-median) reach 4.5% of GDP by 2100, with an uncertainty range of 2.5% and 8.5% resulting from different combinations of temperature change and damages. Avoided damages from achieving a 1.5°C temperature limit along the median-median case are nearly 4% (range 2–7%) by 2100.

That's the bottom-line figure quoted in the article I linked. Avoided damages from keeping climate change to 1.5C are 2-7% of GDP by 2100. That means significant disruptions to the structure of our economy in response to climate change will almost certainly cost us more than what we avoid in damage from climate change.

The last section of the Nature article says that in the authors' view, the aggregate effect of these tipping points could be worse than the IPCC projects. (Note that the above GDP figures do attempt to account for tipping point effects.) That may or may not be true, but that conclusion is not part of the IPCC consensus.

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

#85

Post by mempko »

rayiner wrote: post #29

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 civilizati…

Im sorry but, when have economists been right about anything? Economics is not a science, they just use math and big words because real scientists seem to.

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

#86

Post by rayiner »

mempko wrote: post #85
rayiner wrote: post #29

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 civilizati…

Im sorry but, when have economists been right about anything? Economics is not a science, they just use math and big words because real scientists seem to.

Economists can be pretty damn good at estimating the effect of things on the economy: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/cbo-correctly-predicted-historic-c...

> Meanwhile CBO’s 2010 premium projections were remarkably accurate: within 1 percent of actual average 2017 marketplace premiums.

Note that economists aren't running climate models. IPCC climate scientists are running models projecting what will happen (e.g. crop yields will decline by 20%.) IPCC economists are then putting a dollar value on those effects. (If crop yields decline by 20%, what will be the hit on the economy?)

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

#87

Post by ppf »

shkkmo wrote: post #81
ppf wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really have a source on that, although I'm also not aware of any particular species that are known to have been wiped out due to the current climate change. It is, however, fairly obvious that humans have had an enormous impact on pretty much every inhabitable part of the earth. Even without climate change, it's plausible that human activity will ultimately destroy most ecosystems. >It is quite conceivable th…

You are the one who made a strong assertion that the potential for extinction caused by rapid global warming is less than what humans have already caused. I made relatively few assertions and the ones I did make are basic ecological science. I was pointing out that your strong claim was irresponsible given the plausible possibilities and our limited knowledge.

Not quite. I made the assertion that the ecological damage humans have already caused is much worse than that caused so far by current climate change. We both agree that predicting the further change in climate and its ecological impact is very difficult.

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

#88

Post by matthewdgreen »

rayiner wrote: post #83
matthewdgreen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic behind the GND is simple: if we don’t do something about this, we’re going to be screwed. People don’t want to do anything about it because they’re afraid it will cost jobs. So make a plan that guarantees them jobs if they do something about it. It’s a political solution to a technical problem. You may not like the politics, but it’s pretty damn logical.

I mean we know the actual logic behind the GND: > The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday. > “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-…

I think it’s one solution on the table, and not even one that has the full support of a single party. The others so far seem to be pretty close to a no-op. Be nice to see some other folks try to modulate it and offer a better proposal.

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

#89

Post by threatofrain »

mempko wrote: post #85
rayiner wrote: post #29

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 civilizati…

Im sorry but, when have economists been right about anything? Economics is not a science, they just use math and big words because real scientists seem to.

Economics is a difficult phenomena but any nation or academic body which ignores it study would be severely foolish. There’s no point in bashing its scienciness.

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

#90

Post by xienze »

torstenvl wrote: post #58
xienze wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah get back to us when he’s actually dead, which he won’t be.

I'm sorry, but is your argument really that this issue is "n[o]t thought ... through" unless people actually starve themselves over it? That it's all a "ploy" unless this guy actually dies for his cause? I can't quite tell if you're engaging in a non sequitur or moving the goalposts, but your comment doesn't make sense to me in context.

> That it's all a "ploy" unless this guy actually dies for his cause?

Correct, because anyone can say they’re on a hunger strike but it’s not possible to watch the guy 24/7 to see if he’s really following through.

Post reply on HN