IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

It doesn't seem hyperbolic to me, and I don't understand the addition of "short timeframe". "next natural equilibrium" implies something like 100 years to me, at least. I am very concerned about climate change even though I understand it's not going to directly kill me in 10 years.

> So it sounds like they are not accounting for things like changes between crops or changing which areas are cultivated, which could be pretty significant. > it seems like you would have account for more Canadian land becoming arable and agriculture spreading further north.

It's a map. It's litterally showing the changes by areas. And the map does show areas with increased maize yield, such as Southern Africa, but these don't include Canada or Russia. Potentially the full volume will include other crops yields and more details that you are hoping for.

Of course, the world will adapt and change their crops, but it will come at a cost for people who are unable to adapt, such as farmers in underdeveloped countries.

If you want to criticize this article that's fine, but you are blaming the IPCC authors for this Guardian reporter's phrasing. If you read the report you'll find it was written in a scientific and objective manner, and as emotionless as possible while using human language. You will probably find it boring to read even the extremely shortened "Summary for Policymakers".

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

The associated press release uses stronger language, but it still pretty objective if you accept the emotional axiom that "avoiding death and destruction is good".

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/press/IPCC_AR6_...

I think it was a compromise between achievability and limiting damage what made it to be accepted decades ago. It was unrealistic to ask to not reach 1.5ºC back then, but the increase should be as low as possible to avoid reaching tipping points and triggering positive feedback loops that could put things beyond our possibility of control.

Things are not binary, we are talking about global average temperatures, not the temperature you reach some day or season in a region. So you have to deal with uncertainty and that with higher global average temperature you will have the smaller version of the loops, even if you didn't reach the budget yet. But when you surpass enough them, then you will have more players that are changing the climate, influencing each other, and things will change faster. And there the decimal resolution may lose its meaning, your range of confidence will be much wider.

TL;DR - Sorry for this long post.

"Scientists have issued a "final warning" on the climate crisis as rising greenhouse gas emissions bring the world to the brink of irreversible damage that can only be averted by swift and drastic action."

OMG.

I just stopped reading after the first paragraph. Welcome to the attention economy where only the biggest fairground screamer gets a hearing. Except that fairground screamers are definitely not part of the achievements of "age of enlightenment".

I remember a few years ago - when it was about the populism of extreme right-wing parties - how the propaganda was described: First a problem is described as a catastrophe, and then the only way to solve it is presented. Any parallels?

Nothing - but absolutely nothing - makes sense in this paragraph. Where is the critical thinking that "science" always prides itself?

It starts with the fact that scientists have issued a final warning on the climate crisis. Sounds somehow like parents who are at their wits' end with their educational measures and don't know what to do next. And what does "final warning" actually mean? Will we be spared that from next year on? Or will there be the "really last warning", the "last last warning" or the "last last warning 2"?

I am sure they will continue with their "warnings" next year. What else are they supposed to do?

So then the world comes to the brink of irrevocable damage? What is that supposed to be? Irreversible damage like the last eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in 2010, the irreversible damage of the Hiroshima bombs, the irreversible damage of the last world war?

The world is continuously changing. Things are destroyed and things are rebuilt. We dig up the earth everywhere we greed for mineral resources. For the next iPhone of the very scientists who warn against it. We changed the surface of the Earth a dozen times but now it's irreversible. Fun fact: If nature gets the chance in 1.000 years nothing will be there anymore because nature irreversible changed everything again. Is this a catastrophe as well?

But it's not even "damage", it's just the "brink of possible damage". So we are heading for a situation that might produce damage - and that we can only prevent by taking drastic measures.

But who tells us that precisely these drastic measures will not also lead to damage?

Yes, the climate is changing. The glaciers are melting and suddenly old Roman roads appear that led over the mountains. Yes, it was warmer 2,000 years ago, too. But probably someone forgot to announce to the people back then that they were living on the brink of a catastrophe or something.

Before anybody asks: Yes, lets clean the oceans. Lets plant trees. Lets adapt to the climate change. Lets invest in robust energy sources which are not dependent on wind or sun for which we have to cut down forests and destroy seas. But don't be that arrogant to think that using a master plan we can control a complex, non-deterministic, loopback-based system on the edge of chaos.

This never happened. And this never will. And those systems are always "irreversible" because that's the nature of it.