Accelerating global warming through means meant to slow down environmental degradation would be peak human behavior.
The concurrence of three climatic events
261–270 of 408 posts
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#262In this article is the first time I've seen a graph with units "Hiroshimas per Seconds". https://climatecasino.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Ocean_H...
very poor taste IMO.
It's been suggested to state things in terms of 9/11/2001 for Americans who don't understand the distaste in such discussions. E.g. each "Hiroshima" would be worth 65 "9/11/2001"s. The scale of the graph's Y-axis would run from 195 to 585 "9/11/2001"s.
Derivation: Hiroshima: 129,000–226,000 deaths. E(death_Hiroshima) ~= 180k. 9/11/2011, NYC: 2,753 people died. 180k/2753 ~= 65.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#263How is this on the front page? It's as poorly rooted in science as anti-global warming articles. This level of alarmism is dangerous because thoughts of others imprison us if we’re not thinking for ourselves... why would a young person care about the climate if it's already too late.
How is it poorly rooted? They cite all of the data they used for their sources, and link to research supporting their broad claims. You can’t just call something poorly sourced and alarmist because it’s actually alarming. That’s the problem, right now. Alarming is very much the word I should hope this article is.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dount it'll help you much to move. We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already. Never rains anymore. Slaugherhouses fullbooked already becauae the probability of being able to keep the livestock fed and watered looks pretty bad already...
>Never rains anymore Sweden average rainfall seems to be trending up on a 100-year scale. https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/precipitation > We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already Forest fires in Sweden are a complex dynamic and the risk factor from climate change is only one part. Here is an interesting discussion https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-020-01718-2 Droughts in Sweden have been o…
Well it mostly rains during winter in Sweden and for half the country that means snow, so mo chance of forest fires then. The past 10 years there have been more dry years during summer than the past. Also it's usually dry in the most southern parts of sweden, which also accounts for a majority of the food production.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on it is that "well presented doomers" [0], if you will, serve to balance the "well presented optimists" [1] in that they are needed in society so we can have some take on how things could actually go wrong and sound warnings for potentially catastrophic failures. Its important though, that I think it needs moderating, like not everything "Doomers" say needs to be taken at face value, its important that other…
One downside though is that people generally love an excuse to avoid change or avoid additional effort. “It’s not real, so we don’t have to do anything” is functionally equivalent to “it’s already too late, so why bother doing anything”
This is true even with positive things. I wish I had a good answer for human nature and resistance to change, as that would be game changing generally speaking
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#266Yet another alarmist article. These predictions are so easy to make and nobody cares if you are wrong. From the past (you can google more yourself): https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-eart... https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-t...
Let's see, you don't want people to be alarmist on events that could remap the world as we know it? Okay, if we aren't alarmist then governments won't take action. It sounds like there is no way to win with people like you, and evidently there are enough people like you that we've done nothing.
Regarding your specific complaint, let's look at the AP article. The article is based off an interview with a director, not a scientist. I'm not sure if it's poorly written or the director poorly communicated the issue. The article implies that by 2000 we'd see all of these extreme outcomes, that wasn't what was intended to be communicated. Instead it was that we had until 2000 to stop these events from happening in the future. Which is a very different message. Regardless here we are in 2023 and we are getting ever closer to those events occurring, with some leading indicators already taking place.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third paragraph from the bottom. Seems pretty clear in layman's terms to me. > As we enter Northern hemisphere summer, large regions of the planet will experience record heatwaves, fires, storms and flooding. These events will set records in intensity, duration and frequency. The planet’s overall temperature will spike to new highs for the modern era, with 1.5°C in sight for 2024. Antarctic polar sea-ice will continu…
We've got 40 years of data on Antarctic sea ice, and over the last 4 decades it's been growing, not retreating. [1] [1] https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index
The trends section in that graph shows all sections of ice in decreasing trends, what the hell are you on about
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#268> The IPCC suggests that current sulfur aerosol levels are contributing in the neighborhood of 0.5° C to total global cooling, offsetting warming that would otherwise rapidly occur. > By cleaning up shipping fuels, massive regions of the world’s oceans that were protected from heating by shipping sulfate aerosols are now experiencing rapid warming. This includes the main shipping routes between Asia and the Western U…
> But if every fraction of a degree matters, shouldn't we also be at least continuing if not scaling up these these albedo-increasing changes? Acid Rain is also a bad thing with bad consequences. While I'm not necessarily that opposed to cautious attempts at some geoengineering, I don't think "scale up the sulfate emissions" is a viable solution.
Acid rain _was_ bad, and I'm not trying to ignore it. However, my understanding is that we've already brought down sulfur emissions by an enormous amount over the past 30 years, and the 2020 value was a very small fraction of our peak sulfur emissions [1]. The IMO change took place in 2020, and it's my understanding that the IPCC statement about 0.5C of cooling coming from sulfur emissions is relatively recent. I think our current level of sulfur emissions is closer to being acceptable than our current warming trend.
I'm not pretending that cooling via sulfur emissions is without costs -- but e.g. if living at 2018 levels of sulfur emissions (which were already 90% down from peak) can give us 0.5C of cooling, that's a deal I'm willing to take, especially in light of how hard it is proving to reduce carbon emissions. It especially seems like we're hitting a number of tipping points with warming, and if sulfur emissions (or any other albedo-increasing intervention) can keep us from crossing those lines, we should, in my view. Would we be better off with 2014-level sulfur emissions? 2008? At _some_ point, trading sulfur emissions for cooling becomes a bad deal, and we shouldn't scale up without limit. But is it a good direction to move from where we are now? I think so.
[1] https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/09/whatever-happened-acid-...
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on it is that "well presented doomers" [0], if you will, serve to balance the "well presented optimists" [1] in that they are needed in society so we can have some take on how things could actually go wrong and sound warnings for potentially catastrophic failures. Its important though, that I think it needs moderating, like not everything "Doomers" say needs to be taken at face value, its important that other…
One downside though is that people generally love an excuse to avoid change or avoid additional effort. “It’s not real, so we don’t have to do anything” is functionally equivalent to “it’s already too late, so why bother doing anything”
I disagree, learned helpless is an easy attack on realists who tell it as it is.
We consistently fall in the worst case scenario of most climate models so much so that "faster than expected" is now a meme.
It is indeed too late to avoid famine and water wars but it is not too late to keep large parts of the world still livable. I would very much like my children and my children's children to have a fighting chance.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but they never seem to weigh any of the challenges against humanity's staggering ability to adapt and overcome. Doomerism has planet-sized infomercial hands. There is a long and embarassing trail of false apocalypses predicted from extrapolations + assumptions of helplessness, often made by otherwise intelligent and scientifically inclined people. We were all going to starve, but then Haber figured out how to…
Hm, I do get why people trying to be optimistic always bring up examples from the past to extrapolate that "humanity will always find solutions". What I don't get is that the same people simply overlook that we're not talking about single symptoms with a simple cause but about a root cause (emitting co2) which is deeply integrated into all our actions and economies and humanity is struggling dealing with that for at…
Consuming food wasn't deeply integrated into all our actions and economies? Oil?
> extrapolate that "humanity will always find solutions"
Good thing I didn't do that! Doomers, however, do extrapolate failure. They walk far out on a branch and forget they are carrying the burden of proof. That's my entire point.