WTF Climate Change News

Rose Karuna

Old and Cranky Xherdan
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
1,064
Location
Central Florida
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
2007

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
2,638
SL Rez
2002
According to this climate study we don't have to worry any longer about climate change, because we are already past the point no return. More specifically they looked at the ESCIMO climate model, so you've got to take this into consideration that other models might yield to different results.

 
Last edited:

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,957
SL Rez
2006
According to this climate study we don't have to worry any longer about climate change, because we are already past the point no return.
Interesting. Their conclusion provides factual support for what I've believed for quite a while now, that the point of no return was decades ago. Pretty much every identification of new CO2 sources and feedback loops has been in one direction: change is happening faster/sooner than expected. And since there's no way we've mapped all the interactions and dynamics at play, the most likely assumption is that we've always been underestimating the progression.

My own prediction is hardly scientific, more of an informed hunch, but it seems I'm not that far off the mark.
Conclusion
Self-sustained melting of the permafrost is a robust phenomenon in ESCIMO. It only disappears when man-made emissions are stopped counterfactually as early as in the 1960es. Or by choosing parameter values that do not recreate historical developments. We encourage other model builders to explore these conclusions in their models, and report on their findings.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,957
SL Rez
2006
This past election cycle we saw how politically de-stabilizing climate migration can be. It was only a taste of what is to come:

 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,957
SL Rez
2006
One 42-year-old father wrote that the world in 2050 would be “a hot-house hell, with wars over limited resources, collapsing civilisation, failing agriculture, rising seas, melting glaciers, starvation, droughts, floods, mudslides and widespread devastation.” Schneider-Mayerson said he thought the pessimistic views held were all within the range of possibilities, if not necessarily the most likely outcome.
That anyone is still quibbling over this as a "possible, but not the most likely outcome" is yet another reason why we're doomed to be completely unprepared for the unfolding reality of the following decades.

What was almost as discouraging as the researchers' perspective is that people's concerns were largely focused on the welfare of their potential children, rather than recognizing that refraining from reproduction is a major way to mitigate the very change they fear. Regardless of motivation, however, not enough people are doing this to make a difference.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Archer

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
9,532
SLU Posts
18459
That anyone is still quibbling over this as a "possible, but not the most likely outcome" is yet another reason why we're doomed to be completely unprepared for the unfolding reality of the following decades.

What was almost as discouraging as the researchers' perspective is that people's concerns were largely focused on the welfare of their potential children, rather than recognizing that refraining from reproduction is a major way to mitigate the very change they fear. Regardless of motivation, however, not enough people are doing this to make a difference.
There's not a great deal, though, anyone can do individually other than vote for politicians who take the danger seriously. That might not be sufficient but I can't see anything else that's likely to have any kind of impact.

The kind of thing that has a practical impact is central banks insisting that banks and financial institutions cost in global heating and other risk factors when lending money, and governments taking the Paris Accords seriously and taking practical measures to make producers switch to renewable energy.

I'd say that probably the most effective thing any US citizen has ever done in recent years to avert environmental catastrophe, unless they're actually a decision maker, is contributing to Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris' victory in the elections last month, and the citizens of Georgia are in a position to do even more in January if they manage to flip the Senate so the US' rejoining the Paris Accords stands a chance of being ratified as a treaty, thus forcing the US actually to deliver on its commitments.

That's what's important.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,957
SL Rez
2006
I'd say that probably the most effective thing any US citizen has ever done in recent years to avert environmental catastrophe, unless they're actually a decision maker, is contributing to Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris' victory in the elections last month, and the citizens of Georgia are in a position to do even more in January if they manage to flip the Senate so the US' rejoining the Paris Accords stands a chance of being ratified as a treaty, thus forcing the US actually to deliver on its commitments.

That's what's important.
We are not going to avert climate catastrophe, it's way too late for that. We are already locked in to at least 2-3degree rise in global temperature, based on where we are today. That is more than sufficient to be quite de-stabilizing. There is a theoretical possibility that urgent action rightnow could possibly alter our projected trajectory to 4 degrees of warming, but no one, anywhere, is proposing the kind of change that would avert that outcome.

Meeting just the first stage of the Paris Accords is not going well; the later much more demanding stages are not even discussed (and may well be a moot point). I don't share your belief that voting for Biden was a more effective strategy than forgoing having children, and there's no reason to even frame it as an either/or decision, when both would be preferable.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Tigar

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
9,532
SLU Posts
18459
We are not going to avert climate catastrophe, it's way too late for that. We are already locked in to at least 2-3degree rise in global temperature, based on where we are today. That is more than sufficient to be quite de-stabilizing. There is a theoretical possibility that urgent action rightnow could possibly alter our projected trajectory to 4 degrees of warming, but no one, anywhere, is proposing the kind of change that would avert that outcome.

Meeting just the first stage of the Paris Accords is not going well; the later much more demanding stages are not even discussed (and may well be a moot point). I don't share your belief that voting for Biden was a more effective strategy than forgoing having children, and there's no reason to even frame it as an either/or decision, when both would be preferable.
I didn't say it's an either/choice but I would say that, before too long, we should be hearing about the measures the US will be taking to reduce its carbon footprint and emissions of greenhouse gasses as a result of rejoining the Paris accords and what the quantifiable effects will be over the next n years.

That might well be too little, too late, but it's better than nothing -- the reason the UK now gets so much of its energy from renewable sources is that it's part of long-term government strategy to meet, first, the Kyoto , and then the Paris Protocols, and it's the same reason so many European countries are phasing out petrol and diesel engines in domestic vehicles. It happens because governments and central banks have to make it happen because of international commitments.

That might not be sufficient but it's a lot better than nothing, to my mind.

I don't know how many people would have to forego having children to achieve a similar effect, even if we calculate the savings over a much longer period, but I suspect it would have to be pretty enormous.

The climate crisis requires action by governments and international organisations rather than individual efforts, or so it seems to me, which is why I say that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' victory was so important -- it should have a large and quantifiable effect on reducing emissions in a way that would not otherwise have taken place.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Beebo Brink