Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

silas67r t1_j3jshf2 wrote

Why is disaster in quotations?

27

mycatisgrumpy t1_j3jw17q wrote

Because "disaster" is light-hearted sarcasm. What they actually mean is "completely fucked."

48

SillyFlyGuy t1_j3kwoby wrote

You seem "upbeat" about this.

10

Content_Date_318 t1_j3mtc1o wrote

Yeah I don't understand why people feel the need to be so negative about this! We're only looking at something that will probably be worse than the Permian extinction event. no big deal really.

3

Gemini884 t1_j3noquw wrote

> worse than the Permian extinction event.

​

Read IPCC report on impacts and read what climate scientists say instead of speculating-

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632#m

https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateAdam/status/1553757380827140097

https://nitter.42l.fr/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1477784375060279299#m

https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1553503548331249664#m

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520#m

https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1513918579657232388#m

https://nitter.42l.fr/waiterich/status/1477716206907965440#m

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/

Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/#oceans

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3

It is likely that the proportion of all species at very high risk of extinction (categorised as “critically endangered” by the IUCN Red List) will reach 9% (maximum 14%) at 1.5C, 10% (18%) at 2C, 12% (29%) at 3C, 13% (39%) at 4C and 15% (48%) at 5C, the report says.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/#land

2

Content_Date_318 t1_j3npfo8 wrote

I'm sorry but, many of these models have been shown to be incredibly conservative and leave out many variables which is why "sooner than expected" is a catch phrase among climate scientists.

I read reports religiously.

1

Gemini884 t1_j3nrzhb wrote

Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well?

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right

You probably should listen to what climate scientists say on the matter-

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/

There were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included too

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2

​

What about all the times it's been slower than expected and wasn't reported in media outlets?

3

Content_Date_318 t1_j3nytza wrote

Climate scientists will tell you that their long term models are getting BETTER but not 100% accurate because earth is an extremely complex system with many unknown variables and uncertainties. They don't account for permafrost thaw or dynamic vegetation feedback which contains vast amounts of methane for example.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-carbon-cycle-feedbacks-could-make-global-warming-worse/

Our global industrial activity emits more CO2 than a super volcano with no signs of slowing down on top of observable CO2 feedback loops going off. Ocean heat content and acidity is rising as it did in the Permian. So I don't think its an unfair claim to make.

1

Gemini884 t1_j3qd8eg wrote

Did you not read all of my links?

https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/hausfath/status/1572317492781125632#m

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603

There's not enought available fossil fuel resources to match the total amount emitted during that event. Do you think we will keep emitting at current rate for many more hundreds of years?https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22298-7

https://eos.org/articles/how-modern-emissions-compare-to-ancient-extinction-level-events

https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/hausfath/status/1280282554889760768#m

1

Content_Date_318 t1_j3r0tcc wrote

There's more than enough fossil fuels though to kick off feedback loops in the earths climate. Feedback loops such as carbon release from forest fires, albedo loss from earth losing reflective surfaces, permafrost melt and a couple others I'm missing.

​

Not only that, but the CO2 ppm we are currently sitting at is roughly the same as when the permian started, which is why it's no coincidence we are seeing earths systems begin to behave in similar ways as during the outset of the permian as we have filled the atmosphere full of carbon.

1

Gemini884 t1_j3r4evr wrote

Why didn't you read any of my links? Don't talk to me unless you'venread every single one. You don't understand what you're talking about.

​

There is no evidence for projected warming <3-4C of any tipping points that significantly change the warming trajectory. Read ipcc report and read what scientists say instead of speculating.

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1495438146905026563

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1571146283582365697#m

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/2c-not-known-point-of-no-return-as-jonathan-franzen-claims-new-yorker/

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#tippingpoints

"Some people will look at this and go, ‘well, if we’re going to hit tipping points at 1.5°C, then it’s game over’. But we’re saying they would lock in some really unpleasant impacts for a very long time, but they don’t cause runaway global warming."- Quote from Dr. David Armstrong Mckay, the author of one of recent studies on the subject to Newscientist mag. here are explainers he's written before-

https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/04/01/climate-tipping-points-fact-check-series-introduction/ (introduction is a bit outdated and there are some estimates that were ruled out in past year's ipcc report afaik but articles themselves are more up to date)

1

Content_Date_318 t1_j3r83gg wrote

But the thing is, we aren't stopping at 2c. We will burn carbon based energy sources as long as our current system exists at increasing rates until they're gone, which is backed up by our behavior since the outset of the industrial revolution.

&#x200B;

A bunch of these people you're linking are making assumptions that our carbon emitting industrial activity will cease, which is wrong unless a revolution to change our economic system happens.

&#x200B;

Also in those articles those scientists talk about how they have LOW CONFIDENCE due to a variety of factors in their modeling around several feedback loops. Read your own stuff please

0

Gemini884 t1_j3rar5g wrote

But you literally made the assumption that warming is going to be worse than what models project, and that agw "will probably be worse than the Permian extinction event. ".

&#x200B;

Do you think you know more than the climate scientists I've linked? Our emissions are projected to peak and start declining around 2030 in current policy scenario.

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643#m

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671#m

https://climateactiontracker.org/

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632#m

You don't understand what you've read. And I suspect that you did not read everything I've linked.

1

Content_Date_318 t1_j3rbwru wrote

Yes, I treat the models like they're supposed to be treated, as a good reference and solid idea on how things turn out. They don't perfectly simulate reality for the reasons I have outlined.

&#x200B;

I do not listen to climate panel agreements anymore because they have been shown to be worth less than the paper they are written on outside of a few cases. I've been following climate panels since the 90s and we've nearly doubled CO2 emissions since then. There is no meaningful interest in reducing emissions for a myriad of factors which can be boiled down to, we will not ignore cheap energy when its so vital to economic growth.

0

Gemini884 t1_j3xjmsb wrote

Why are you spreading misinformation that's not in line with ipcc report scientific consensus? You know that it's an irresponsible thing to do.

1

Content_Date_318 t1_j3xmyn1 wrote

I am not spreading misinformation. I am making people aware of the limitations of our scientific modeling and stating clearly the present course we are on. I have given you more than enough to back up my statements which obviously is a bother to you, which is a personal problem I'm afraid. Have a nice life.

0

Gemini884 t1_j3xqmen wrote

I literally pointed out where you are wrong multiple times. You did not read all of the links I sent you which is your problem. You should listen to actual climate scientists instead of morons from r/collapse.

&#x200B;

&gt;I treat the models like they're supposed to be treated, as a good reference and solid idea on how things turn out.

I repeat, you literally made the assumption that warming is going to be worse than what models project when it can go both ways. There is little evidence that climate change is worse than we thought, nor that assessments are downplaying the risks.

You also claimed that models "don't account for permafrost thaw or dynamic vegetation feedback" which is not true because they do account for these things.

"climate panel agreements" Yeah, you totally can not read. I was talking talking about current policies(as in, policies that are already implemented, not pledges made at COPs).

"Also in those articles those scientists talk about how they have LOW CONFIDENCE" You just took words out of context. Point me to the article and paragraph where these words are.

1

Content_Date_318 t1_j3xsug8 wrote

I'm sorry, but we are going in circles. I will not be replying anymore. I literally linked you your own article with climate scientists saying what particulars in their simulations they have high and low confidence on which is predicated on our understanding of certain mechanics in earths system which we are still learning much about.. Not only that the lower pathways rely on us cutting emissions, which I am telling you isn't happening unless there are major changes to our growth based economic system as it is addicted to the cheap energy carbon based fuels provide.

&#x200B;

Work on your reading comprehension and read your own stuff please.

1

Gemini884 t1_j3y0f2a wrote

Yes, models aren't 100% accurate and there are uncertainties, please answer how does that justify your assumption that they somehow underestimate future warming? It's not a fair assumption to make, since warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates, climate models in previous ipcc reports neither systematically overestimated nor underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti_ETH/status/1554473710404485120

Climate policy changes have already reduced projected warming from >4c to <3c by the end of century. That's a current policy scenario, it's even lower if you count in pledges and commitments.

climateactiontracker.org

&#x200B;

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632#m

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671#m

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643#m

1

Gemini884 t1_j3y4jum wrote

&gt;I will not be replying anymore

&#x200B;

It's funny how you can just do that on the internet(on top of having no proper punishment or any consequences for disinformation whatsoever).

1

Gemini884 t1_j3npjq7 wrote

You did not even read the article. tldr- (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/106tuzk/comment/j3lh3nb/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

&#x200B;

Also,

Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/#oceanshttps://

www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3

2

WeLLrightyOH t1_j3k0x4f wrote

For a serious answer, I believe it represents an actual word or term that was directly spoken in the item that the title refers to. Essentially it’s a quote really.

42