Not only the climate is warmer than models anticipated, we're doing worse to prevent it than pessimistic expectations.
Needless to say, I am not very optimistic about getting climate change under control.
71–80 of 118 posts
Not only the climate is warmer than models anticipated, we're doing worse to prevent it than pessimistic expectations.
Needless to say, I am not very optimistic about getting climate change under control.
Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.
Climate scientists also try to paddle a bit the doomerism because the worst predictions make normal laypeople tune off (as is evident on a lot of comments on HN about it), ignoring those hot models was also a PR move to not make the general public become disinterested or detached since the outcomes might be much worse than they heard before.
I have quite a few friends doing their PhD in different areas of climate science here in Stockholm, all of them are much more pessimistic than the general public, they also think that bringing this sentiment out will make things worse, in their opinion it's good to give people hope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's crazy that there are still people who don't get this. "It's cold here, so there's no such thing as global warming." They forget that the other hemisphere is on fire.
What’s amazing is despite flawed science people keep believing it and insulting anyone who questions it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.
I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.
Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either. Both are addressed in the article along with other possibilities.
> Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either. The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL09...
From the NASA interview linked here:
And the first paper that came out about the volcano, they said, no, no, the normal cooling volcanic pollution is still bigger than the warming water vapor component.
From the wikipedia article you didn't link: One study { of this specif eruption ) estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years, although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk.
Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres.
More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga...Which is contrary to the time sequence you claim.
FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as:
Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor.
'may not' and 'could potentially'Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed.
According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, we're approaching a massive tipping point in just a couple of weeks. Some of the "poser pontificators" claim to be concerned about the climate, yet they're not even sure they will vote. If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.
I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be…
A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.
Spring time and it’s 7 degrees. Usually higher this time of year.
Weather != climate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.
Previous temperature changes occurred over millennia, not a century and a half. Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
> Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Previous temperature changes occurred over millennia, not a century and a half. Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity? > Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions. I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Not what I said. You argued it has been hotter before and it wasn't a problem. I had to explain to you that temperatures haven't changed this fast before, which is a strong argument for the antrhopogenic nature of the current change. It also illustrates the danger of the current phase, since the thriving ecosystems of millions of years ago didn't have to deal with such sudden change.
> I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Don't conflate narrow global conditions with narrow set of landscapes. The holocene has been remarkably stable in terms of climate and civilization thrived due to this stability.
You're clearly arguing in bad faith and I feel no need to engage further
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Previous temperature changes occurred over millennia, not a century and a half. Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity? > Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions. I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Only in the sense that it's not the fall that kills you, it's the rapid deceleration at the end.
Evolutionary time (for us and our crops) is much longer than the "approximately one human lifetime" in which it will have become necessary to have adapted substantially. Genetic modification for humans and crops might work if you don't care about the entire rest of the ecosystem.
Ice core measurements go back 800,000 years, which is longer than humans have been human (about 300k). In all that time, up to the industrial revolution, CO2 only varied been about 170 and 300 ppm, its now about 420 ppm and rising so fast it's a vertical line on any graph that shows all the ice core data and is less than 8000 pixels wide.
> I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Figure 5, primary production spacial map and graph of temperature and precipitation vs output.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2725/2020/
"Where you can physically reside" != "the foundational input into your civilisation".
You may think your food comes from the supermarket, but that's just a convenient abstraction because the foundation has not been broken.