University of Oxford climate researcher warns that their observations lie "well outside the range" of IPCC's latest climate models, with a "hell on Earth" future likely without an immediate halt in carbon emissions.
By - rarenight7
**Prof Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics at the University of Oxford:**
>“The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) states that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land, and that this warming will continue as we keep emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is very hard to imagine any credible scientist doubting this. Indeed, if we do not halt our emissions soon, our future climate could well become some kind of hell on Earth.
>“In this respect, the real world may be running ahead of what the AR6 climate models can simulate. In particular, the extraordinary heat extremes observed recently in British Columbia, and the rainfall extremes over Zhengzhou and the Rhineland, lie well outside the range of what can be simulated by the AR6 models. This reminds us that whilst the case for decarbonisation is clear, the science of climate change is far from done and dusted. This has implications. Shortcomings in our ability to simulate climate extremes make it difficult to prioritise adaptation strategies, not least in trying to improve climate resilience in developing countries. These shortcomings also make it hard to know whether the climate system is really reaching some kind of irreversible tipping point – one that would make pointless, negative emissions later in the century.
>“With AR6 now delivered, this is the time for a new discussion on how best to advance the science of climate modelling, so that we can plan for the future with greater confidence. Arguably, relying on a relatively large number of relatively coarse resolution models – as IPCC has done over the decades – may not be the most effective use of our resources. This should be an issue for discussion at COP26.”
**Prof Dave Reay, Director of Edinburgh Climate Change Institute at the University of Edinburgh:**
>“This report should send a shiver down the spine of everyone who reads it. In the unblinking delivery style of the IPCC it sets out where we are now and where we are headed and climate change: in a hole, and still digging.
>“Extreme temperatures, and the loading of the heat wave dice our emissions are causing, get deserved attention. A searing ‘1-in-50 year event’ of the past for instance, is already more than 4 times more likely and, under a high emissions future, could become around 40 times more likely, and 5 degrees hotter to boot.
>“What really stands out are the new assessments of tipping points in our global climate system, and the climate change lock-ins we are forging for scores of generations to come. For the tipping points – things like massive die-back of the forests and belching of carbon from thawing soils – it’s clear that every extra tonne of CO2 emitted today is pushing us into a minefield of feedback effects tomorrow.
>“For climate change lock-ins, the long-term sea level rise assessments are simply gut-churning: Impacts that are irreversible for millennia and where scenarios of 2 metres (6 feet) of sea level rise by the end of the century and a Hollywood-esque 15 metres (45 feet) by 2300 cannot be ruled out.
>“When world leaders and their negotiation teams gather here in Scotland for COP26 they must have the findings of this report seared into their minds, and take the urgent and far-reaching action required. This is not just another scientific report. This is hell and highwater writ large.”
**Prof Grant Allen, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Manchester:**
>"My prediction that Europe must prepare for temperatures of 50 C (122 F) in the near future should come as no surprise."
**Prof Nigel Arnell, Professor of Climate System Science at the University of Reading & lead author for Chapter 12 of the IPCC Report:**
>"We now have a greater understanding of how quickly risks will change, and several very damaging plausible ‘worst case’ scenarios cannot be ruled out."
Etc. Scientists are heralding legitimate doom in their expert reactions to the IPCC's latest report, which I find really fascinating. It underscores how dire the situation really is.
So the rains in china and the heat in canada were hardly possible within the ipcc's ar6 model.. and yet that model's predictions still has everyone uber spooked. The reality is way worse apparently lol
The models and the reports are obviously far too conservative, they can’t even model what’s happening right now.
RCP 8.5 is probably going to be the most realistic, I feel like we’re already reaching tipping points that will lead to the release of huge amounts of carbon even if we do curb anthropogenic emissions.
Not just carbon. Methane. If methane in the ocean and permafrost is released, we are all gonna be very, very fucked in very short order.
Venus in this half a century.
Lol stupid humanity gets fucked.
I seriously doubt it. It's not like we're introducing GHGs that haven't been in the atmosphere at some point in the last few billion years. Add to that that we're still in the goldilocks zone of our sun, and that just seems very unlikely.
Earth will be the same chaotic hellhole it was after Chicxulub at worst. Life survived that. But yeah, humans are fucked.
Researchers think they might have found traces of life on Venus. If we're lucky maybe a few species can survive and thrive in this future environment instead of the complete extinction of all life 🤞.
Even if all life ends, it will reemerge eventually. Time is only really a thing if there is a living being to experience it. If all life ends on earth, then there will be nothing to experience time and so it will pass more-or-less instantly until new life emerges in some form to start experiencing it again (to be clear, this is a functional perspective. Those years would still happen but they would be like the billions of years that passed between the big bang and the emergence of life the first time. I don't mean to imply that time would literally skip forward).
You realize life is on the scale of like hundreds of millions of years, and the sun is going to expand shortly when viewed on that timeline?
Life likely wont have time to re emerge fully because we dont have another billion years on earth.
Atmospheric effects could easily be far greater than that.
The thing is we dont really know whats going to happen. Thats whats really scary.
who said it needed to be on earth? earth will be uninhabitable by definition. Even if life does not return to our solar system, it should return somewhere at some point. And hell, even if it doesnt, its not like anyone will be around to complain about it.
I don't get this obsession with life having to be somewhere at all times. Like, who the fuck cares, you and I personally will be dead.
There has to be life or else the food pictures we took on Instagram were pointless.
But, my fear is that we might come back, ie re-incarnation. Or experiencing human consciousness as a baby in the future again....
Hopefully it gets crushed again relatively soon!
You can't see it, but i'm pressing 'X' to 'Doubt' here.
Tartigrades will survive on earth. Maybe they will be one of the last inhabitants of humanity doesn’t change their ways.
Maybe humans started on Venus and we colonized earth, losing every bit of technology
Ten bucks says that they sent the hairstylists and phone sanitizers first.
I don't think all life will die on earth, maybe not even humans but it surely will look way different..
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if RCP 8.5 ends up being seen as a conservative outcome.
The prospect of that actually being the case is terrifying.
Reminds me of that Futurama episode where the aliens were gonna heat the Earth instantly to 25 million degrees if they did not get a new episode of Ally McBeal and then 5 million every day thereafter until they got it.
Once we hit a certain point, what comes after won't make a difference for humans.
"everyone" is not spooked
the percentage of human paying attention to IPCC reports are like .1%
lol you just square multiplied the problem for me hahaha
They simply lack the *ridiculous* complexity needed to predict a basically 'unknown unknown' phenomenon, heat domes and "what happens when the jet stream collapses".
These heatwaves don't raise the temperature of the earth, just as a side note.
But yeah, the rate of change (compare 2021 to 2017) is staggering.
I mean positive feedback is something that's really hard to predict and also I think kind of ignored or not paid enough attention. But it sure will make earth a disaster
When your best / most authoritative set of models is failing to predict extreme heat events on the right time scale, should be obvious that something is terribly wrong with your models. Maybe something was somehow missed? That's some shitting bricks situation
Fortunately, the rain down in Spain stays mainly on the plain.
xD from what ive heard
THIS THIS 100-TIMES THIS. Thank you for sharing. Things seem to be moving faster than IPCC reports can keep up. We can't wait years for the next report to tell us what's going on this year.
It's very clear that the so called doomers on r/collapse were very much ahead in the game and called it like it is. Any unwarranted optimism must be surely ruled out at this point of time. Even the scenarios chalked out by the preppers community seems increasingly unlikely. In fact Guy McPherson might be the one who came closest to calling it like it is.
I started out my apocalypse watching hobby reading about extreme events like supervolcanoes, gamma ray bursts, or even the eventuality of the sun expanding enough to fry Earth. I read a lot about climate change starting around age 12 but it always seemed so far off... Now at 30, it's here. 18 years of this being at the back of my mind. I thought humanity would wake up, but I'm tired.
COVID has been like a dress rehearsal for the big show. Even if the majority get on board, the greedy will fuck it up for the rest of us.
While profiting off it.
I think, in this context, greedy means anyone not willing to play ball for the greater good. It isn't always about money even though most of the time it is.
There’s already words for that: selfish and self-centered.
Man, when I started saying, "the way COVID was handled makes me very unconfident how climate change is going to be handled," I did NOT expect it to hit so hard so soon.
Forreal. 9/11 occurred in order for us to start a war to gain oil based resources. Persistence of Wall Street to destroy any company that introduces other clean energy solutions until Tesla burned the shorters. The connections are becoming clearer.
I learned about peak oil as a teen and it always fascinated me we know where oil comes from and we know how much we use... Lets hypothesize about when we'd run out.
I got into collapse around 19 20 or so about 8 years ago as a way to help create a civil war alternative universe USA post collapse. Then i read and looked and went huh were actually fckd. Didn't think i was gone have this experience
Did the same thing in high school haha
Unwarranted optimism is necessary for people to still buy oil though, and money is more important than anything else, so yeah, everything's fine.
Yh old Guy is looking far less insane nowadays. Ignoring his strangley precise 2026 cut off date I think that hes probably quite close and when it comes down to it, you can't really fault his philosophy. He seems like a guy ( no pun intended) who is genuine and really believes what he says. It seems that he also has the humility to accept that he may be wrong. Not to lick his ass or anything. Just feel he doesn't get enough respect where it's due. Whether he is right or wrong...
I only ever agreed with Guy when he talked about looming crop failures. To think he wound up on the money about his other predictions is definitely not reassuring. Well, shit.
I saw a post yesterday where someone took a photo of a time and temperature sign in Córdoba, Spain.
51C at 5pm.
Edit: [Here tis.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellthatsucks/comments/p4ec0i/the_air_burns_in_my_city_c%C3%B3rdoba_spain/)
Real talk, I coming from cleaning my car, as I was driving out of the parking out, waiting to turn, and the Suns' rays were hitting my arm were stinging. Not, oh crap it's hot, time to move, which is why I was leaving in the first place. I was out there for maybe 10 minutes and I was covered in sweat. This heat stung me. I remember laughing like Hell Nah.
We have to do some fast, and Siberia is on fire? We don't have time to play games, but try telling your neighbors to reduce or stop driving? Or carpool only? Or This, slaughter a bunch of the cows to reduce emissions from their farts.
We have people who are fighting each other about wearing a mask during a pandemic no less. This is going to be war. Civil War, unless cooler heads prevail. Which isn't possible from my eyes, but who knows.
Driving to the car wash. Dude.
> Driving to the car wash. Dude.
I was rolling coal down-town for a few hours last night to help my three youngest kids get to sleep like I do most nights and noticed how warm it was with all the air pouring in through my windows which were open so people could hear my music, so I put the air-con its highest setting to counter act the hot air flowing in and it was fine. Don't know what people are complaining about.
You da problem if you don't know. Now you do.
> Or This, slaughter a bunch of the cows to reduce emissions from their farts.
If we get rid of cows entirely (we can technically leave the ones that graze fields of wild plant matter), we can apparently get rid of 10% of the global warming in 10 years. I have no idea why nobody is pitching this.
I struggle with the death of so many lives, but the cows are in the same boat. Many or all. This is a nightmare. Like I'm so so ashamed.
Spoiler alert: the cows are going to get slaughtered anyway. But seriously, we don’t need to kill every single cow alive at this moment. Just tax beef an insane amount to where the market will be crushed. A hamburger will cost $25. A steak $100. Ranchers who follow strict protocols that reduce methane emissions (like feeding the cattle seaweed) could have lower taxes, therefore encourage better practices. I’d be fine if beef was only raised by small local farms.
I agree. I'm slowly (eating pork chop as I type this) trying to eat less meat. I think wild boar meat may be our primary meat source for the future. At least here in the US. In my opinion, we eat more meat than necessary. Again, before thing turn...again, we should be working on our dietary habits now, while there is seemingly an abundance. There is a woman Shiva Vandana? She supports local farming too. It reduces cost to transport the food, if it can be grown locally. She had other points but she is a perfect person (of many) to help guide things in these upcoming days.
Local farming isn't all that important. It really is the product itself, that determines how many emissions are caused. There are exceptions of course.
It's one of the central problems of dealing with CC in democracies, you have to convince the populace to vote for unpopular things, such as eating plant based hamburgers instead of traditional ones.
No one wants to tell the people that they have to stop eating meat.
You have no idea why nobody is pitching species extermination as a solution? Are you fucking serious?
Eco-totalitarianism it is. It's the only option, and would still require a near world wide effort. In essence, we're fucked.
People seem irked when I state that just going a bit greener personally is going to solve fuck all. It's an intense global effort or it's not going to be enough.
I'd get irked too. Think about the long term consequences of thinking "Everything that needs to be done needs to be done by corporations, or through laws".
No willingness to decrease your personal emissions, however small, means that person will likely not vote for any new laws or similar either. It's just "priming" the person to not care.
Talking to a friend: "It's good that you're making changes in your life. The real changes, that actually affect major polluters, will come when people like you and me make up the majority. It's a long road, but we'll get there."
It's some of us or all of us. I don't want war. The first book I brought with my own money and read to completion was "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, I try and breathe no conflict, but the reality of the situation is some people for whatever reason, even against their own good will fight you. We don't even have time to like drag them along and let time open their eyes, else we die in the process. I've cried for days at this realization. I don't know how crap is going to fall apart, but we need to be working on community now to reduce the conflict for when the illusion does go up in flames.
Yap, told my friends 6 years ago that we are fucked. They surely didn't believe me. Stopped talking about it years ago.
There is no point.
The headline does not fairly represent the message of the scientists. The headline suggests that reality is worse than the models suggest, while they merely caution that their models cannot simulate such things.
Isn't .... isn't that the same thing?
They look at the climate at such a high level that localized rainfall simply isnt in the model. They couldnt tell you if it would go up, down or in a freaking circle. They dont have an opinion on it. But the headline basically says "its much worse than the scientists expected".
No, it isn't. The headline is alluding to reality being outside the range of IPCC's climate models, while the scientists are talking about how the models, while still capturing the full range of our predicament, cannot pinpoint the specific occurence of freak weather events at specific places.
There is no "immediate halt" in carbon emissions. Heck, it may go up depending on which way the pandemic is going.
"Hell on Earth" is pretty much certain at this point.
It\`s going to increase once the pandemic is over.
> once the pandemic is over.
Young ones and their hopium.
Pandemics DO come to an end. Eventually a virus runs out of hosts. If COVID became a seasonal occurrence, people would take annual boosters or end up in hospital, but I think it's more likely to burn through the population fast rather than simmer since most unvaccinated individuals do not practice basic health measures such as increased hand cleaning, social distancing, and masking.
Yap, texas is making a good effort to infect everyone as fast as possible.
It’s *continued* to increase during the pandemic, the rate was just reduced slightly.
We are so fucked.
I'm pretty much set for when the shtf, barring picking up more useful skills. Guess It's time to redouble my effort on clearing my steam backlog before these fun times are a distant memory.
"Ahem. I'm the prez. I says: Draft order and we seize all personal belongings that can help the local society. People who refuse will be jailed, and unlike the people who are drafted into forced labor with pay, you will be forced to slave without pay"
Good thing I'm not American then lol
I'm with you man. Living in Hell on Earth doesn't sound appealing. Grinding out Relic Weapons in FF14? Not actually that much more appealing but at least Eorzea is fun.
What’s frustrating to me here is that this has been evident for quite a long time, and yet the IPCC has waited until well past too late to allow an accurate assessment of just how dire the situation is.
We have clearly passed numerous “tipping points,” but even now no one has the guts to say so.
At this point it’s probably best to continue saying nothing bad will happen until 2100. Then we can die in peace, in a fiery hellscape of our own design.
You had a good run humanity! Agriculture was pretty slick, rockets are even cooler. But now it’s time to pass on the world to the tardigrades.
Is it ethical to say 2100 when you know 2040 is optimistic?
Will we make it to 2030?
yes, especially if youre in the global north. chaos will impact colonized nations disproportionately.
Won't the global north see more drastic changes because of polar amplification compared to equatorial regions? Moreover, the infrastructure and lifestyles of most developed countries have always been modelled on weather patterns that aren't extremely hot.
On the other hand, the global south has always had to contend with extreme heat/humidity, which would make their lifestyles better suited for more extreme heat/humidity.
Yeah on one hand: if the global North can just build a few walls and pretend like the refugees don't exist, they will probably hold out for a while.
On the other hand: it only takes a few bad harvests due to heat to cause mayor food shortages. when people actually panic buy (like 2020 but this time not toilet paper but food) things will get real ugly very fast
We can hit 2030 if we really try!
Jesus Christ, I hope not! How am I supposed to find a good place to watch everything fall apart in less than a decade?!
I've hated the cold Minnesota winters all my life. But now I realize the it's probably not the worst place to be in the current long term.
Granted, nowhere is going to be particular GOOD, but it beats either coast hands down
As a fellow pigeon, I am scared.
Humanity will surpass 2100 but it won’t be pleasant.
They are in a though spot, if the IPCC rushes with their assessments and fails, that will give perfect excuses to the "skeptics". If they are slow with their assessments, they make us waste time.
the IPCC absolutely MUST be conservative with their numbers.
Any projection they publish that is too extreme will cause a severe back lash against them.
So thats what they do. The publish very conseravtive numbers and ***even those conservative predictions are horrifying!***
And yet...we do nothing.
Yeah, all the usual suspects squeezed out at least two years of confusion and doubt just by "Climategate" which was some scientists disagreeing in some private e-mails. Boomers are still screaming about certain quotes Al Gore said in his doc. Imagine if the IPCC made one tiny mistake!
You guys are silly for acting like climate deniers read a thing they put out.
>yet...we do nothing.
Doing nothing, thereby actively accelerating climate collapse by maintaining status quo.
I mean the Biden administration came out with a public statement for OPEC to increase oil production just two days after the report.
The ones with the political power to change things at the necessary scales are bought and paid for, meanwhile the rest of us get fucked over one day at a time.
I was listening to an NPR podcast where this woman was saying "We are working on a plan to switch to renewable energy by the end of the century" and I had to rewind to make sure I heard "century" rather than "decade." The dissonance is insane.
Well in a sense that goal is achievable, if by “we” she meant whatever life is left on earth. Plants use renewable energy!
"We are food for the plants."
There probably won't be an end of the century.
Would have been good if she had meant LAST century.
Obligatory not a scientist, but I remember reading somewhere (think it was someone’s comment?) saying how the IPCC actually gathered these findings years ago, and it took them this long to put it all together and release it now when they did. And that’s why it takes so long for them to release?
I could be completely off the mark, if someone actually knows the answer feel free to correct me.
In general, any published research data is already at least a year or two out date, and is addressing a question that is at least older than that. Often by several years, as it takes time to propose and get funding for research questions even before the data is collected.
Science is fundamentally slow and conservative, while nature is *faster than expected*.
>Science is fundamentally slow and conservative, ~~while nature is faster than expected~~ while the damage has been vastly underreported and physics and earth systems response has been faster than expected.
That's one of its shortcomings, but one kinda hard to adress. They should probably switch to smaller and much more frequent reports and updates.
The other big shortcoming is that the IPCC report relys on a consensus model, basically they look for what all the models and working groups can agree on, in other words the lowest common denominator. Thereby inevitably downplaying and even ignoring fat tail risks. Exactly the kind of extreme weather that we are seeing all over the globe this year.
Naomi Oroskes has a good explanation on how this focus on consensus leads to wonky results:
> How does this lead to underestimation? Consider a case in which most scientists think that the correct answer to a question is in the range 1–10, but some believe that it could be as high as 100. In such a case, everyone will agree that it is at least 1–10, but not everyone will agree that it could be as high as 100. Therefore, the area of agreement is 1–10, and this is reported as the consensus view. Wherever there is a range of possible outcomes that includes a long, high-end tail of probability, the area of overlap will necessarily lie at or near the low end. Error bars can be (and generally are) used to express the range of possible outcomes, but it may be difficult to achieve consensus on the high end of the error estimate.
And, of course, they are also consistently leaving out factors that are too hard to assess at the time, like famously methane.
The scientific process takes FOREVER (which is a good and necessary thing under most circumstances, as it assures plenty of time to thoroughly evaluate results, etc.). Even a relatively small human-subjects study involving a few MRI scans can take several years to get funding, gain regulatory approval, carry out data collection, submit closeout paperwork to the funder/regulatory entities, clean data, reach out to collaborators from other institutions (who may live in different time zones or countries) for help evaluating the data, write up the reports for funding agencies (even for a smaller study, these reports are usually hundreds of pages long), and THEN you actually get to publish your results in peer-reviewed journals.
By the time you publish your results, the groundbreaking idea that got you funding in the first place may no longer be groundbreaking at all. And the data you collected (in the case of the IPCC report, the climate data used to make predictions about our future) can be really old and not even applicable anymore.
And keep in mind that investigators are almost never working on only one study - often they split their time across multiple studies and collaborate with investigators in other labs. And this doesn't even consider the academic obligations that the investigator may have if they are a university professor or hold other leadership positions. Keep in mind, too, that most of the IPCC scientists were working in their off-hours, outside of their normal work hours. Some of them weren't even paid for their work on this report. And this report required collaboration across nearly every time zone, so sometimes these researchers stayed up until the late hours of the night to have online meetings with researchers from other countries. Honestly it's amazing that they managed to pull off this report at all - but like any report, it's outdated before it's even published.
it's a particularly special project that involve hundreds of countries, with dozens of scientists each, from the time they write a draft, to reviews, discussions and fixes, times has gone.
IPCC is merely a filter for alarming and potentially economically impactful science to get ignored.
The ultimate arbiters who determine what goes into the final draft and literally oil companies and senior researchers who have been in "the game" long enough to have been given grants by those companies.
It's just absolutely gas-lighting and withholding of the most important findings.
Which is why such a dire report is terrifying.
Humanity thought All Are Equal Before God
But then they forget that All Are Equal Before Death too
I feel like the scientific community was pretty clear how fucked we are, for decades now. The IPCC reports are mostly just a formality.
Thank you for this article. I wish there was someone I could talk about this irl, but everyone I know pretends everything’s alright. Talking about climate feels like taboo these days.
Good grief network
Honestly upsetting how little I see Deep Adaptation mentioned, given how important it was for my personal coping with climate change. I and my affinity have started organizing our futures around some of the principles laid out there. It’s a very good jumping point for handling climate grief.
My wife has accepted our fate aswell, but what are going to talk about? You just stare into the void and don't have any words or ideas.
Agreed. It makes me...happy? relieved? that we never had kids.
My husband wants to retire early because his job (management) is utterly f**ked and he's burned out. We've saved and will be consulting for Covered California and a financial advisor--we have puzzle pieces but need help with the options. What's the point of him continuing work, screwing his health, if he doesn't have to and we'd like to enjoy a little before it all goes to literal hell?
Action, protests, mailing politicians the link, maybe putting up signs outside the homes of particularly evil, local politicians?
Future planning, basically prepping, but without the 'live in woods' stereotype. I'm sure you can at least get an UPS for brownouts.
And as always, *spear fight training*. Spears being the best melee weapon out there, bar none.
Should make an app like tinder, but for meeting up with other collapse-aware and just have a smoke, drink some whiskey or something and just talk freely about what is on one's mind. Would be so freeing just being able to let it all out without being met with a blank stare or judged as borderline mentally ill.
On a side note. It's really scary being surrounded by people who are so blind to the way things are going, and so attached to this hell-bound system, that they judge mental health on how well you can smile and pretend nothing is wrong while everything is burning. Depressed? Oh well better get that checked!
I think many of those people are just in denial, because the prospect is so terrifying.
Not too sure about that, many still have the mindset that if we can send humans to the moon or create a nuclear bomb, that we would also be able to eventually invent something to solve climate crisis. According to those, the crisis is simply not dire enough yet in order to do something right now.
I am very pessimistic about this however. Carbon is very hard to capture from the atmosphere, because air on average only contains ~410 particles CO2 per million. Yet its effect on climate is catastrophic.
Once I framed the reaction to the climate crisis like stages of grief, it all made sense. People are all at different stages and that will frame their beliefs, behaviors, and discussions with others.
It all begins with denial and then people may or may not progress further to stages such as anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance.
Personal journey through the stages below:
Personally I am at the depression stage as of the last couple years. I was in the denial stage through the early 2010s when I was still in the army and then community college. In community college around 2013 or 2014 I took an English course and wrote a paper over energy production which opened my eyes to the issues related to what allows us to live in a modern industrialized civilization. That helped me transition to the anger stage as I could see something was very wrong. The transition from anger stage to bargaining stage was at UCLA 2015-2017 thinking our scientific progress and collective action could solve these issues. However my time digging deeper over the years has revealed we just aren’t going to solve this and became quite depressed around 2019 or 2020. At this point I am trying to accept it through my studies of stoicism for my own personal and professional development. It won’t stop it but it could help my sanity at least find acceptance…even as horrible as that is.
We'll never reach "Star Trek" as a species.
I figure we'll continue as much as we can, but I honestly figure that, as it gets worse and untenable, A LOT of people will be offing themselves.
Don't forget, Star Trek wasn't always the glitz you see in the shows. The history was dark and contained a period where there was a nuclear war, eco terrorists, and a multitude of authoritarian empires before things started to look better.
I suspect a large number of Americans will simply go insane with time. And by large I mean upwards of 40%
I talk about it with most anyone who will listen. It’s just crazy how many people want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything is alright. That our blind over consumption is sustainable. I bartend and have been in the service industry for 12+ years at this point, and just seeing the tremendous amounts of waste, from packaging to water to of course the food, every day is staggering. It’s insane to think we are going ride this fucker til the wheels fall off with out a care for the future. Combined with the a fraction of society’s response to covid and the reaction to this new wave just gives me a big sense of dread, that no we will not be able to pull through this. Especially when you have members of our government so deeply embedded in corporation and big oil pockets and at the same time trying to derail democracy.
It’s like I’m taking crazy pills man.
Someone on here recommended George Marshall's book 'Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change', which is a book I've started reading. This was an interesting excerpt from an article about the book that Marshall wrote:
> The primary reason is that our innate sense of social competition has made us acutely alert to any threat posed by external enemies. In experiments, children as young as three can tell the difference between an accident and a deliberate attack. Climate change confounds this core moral formula: it is a perfect and undetectable crime everyone contributes to but for which no one has a motive.
> There is no outsider to blame. We are just living our lives: driving the kids to school, heating our homes, putting food on the table. Only once we accept the threat of climate change do these neutral acts become poisoned with intention – so we readily reject that knowledge, or react to it with anger and resentment.
Wow that is definitely a new perspective from which to look at this whole ordeal. Thank you for the recommendation, adding it to my list now. Cheers1
There are faint beatings of war drums in the distance, and they are falling on deaf ears. The next decade or two will see changes I don't believe any of us could have ever imagined.
Change needs to come, now.
I think this sums it up quite well:
Action needs to be taken now while humanity innovates. It would throw the world in chaos is everything just stopped. That is my take on what we can do as far as changing now.
The video is not bad but completely misses on a few things. Lack of funding for innovation, and the fact that a handful of companies produce 70% of all emissions.
As someone who knows the undercurrents of Uni. of Oxford's thinking, they are *extremely conservative*. The fact *they* are saying this is *extremely concerning*.
In the last few years, one general rule has emerged, according to my observations:
"It is much worse than any predictions have foreseen. Every model has been surpassed. The collapse we are seeing is far faster than we thought."
We are inside an explosion. The idea that we should NOW start talking about the amount of gunpowder we have placed in the bomb and maybe reduce it a bit is straight up laughable.
The problem being that the immediate halt of all carbon emissions would likely lead to it's own special flavour of collapse. Personally, I think we should probably just do it and rip the band aid off - but I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that I'm not in the percentage group that survives either way.
The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
Pick your pain. Either now or later, the current economy and its resultant lifestyle are going to end. This is going to stop emissions either way.
In one me and my kids still get a dinner at the table for the foreseeable future (maybe), the other I get a few more feasts and then endless famine.
How is this a fucking choice???
If all carbon emissions were halted immediately food production and it reaching where everyone lived would tank but at least food could still grow in that world.
Well reducing to zero net doesn't mean no transport can exist. Seriously once again this is a complex problem that needs a massive amount of optimization
That’s kinda the point. There is very little choice except learn to become self sufficient.
> self sufficient.
No such thing. You rely on a habitable biosphere.
Ah, the kind of people that think they can 'live on mars' because Musk says so are the ultimate exponent of this stupidity, but even the 'i'll just make a homestead' guys are pretty naif.
Try to make your homestead without symbiotic species, mechanic tools, and with a wildly spinning temperature range and frequent ecological disaster that you're not even equipped to _comprehend_, much less humanity falling apart with no organization, i dare you.
Can't wait until governments start mandating that all cows need to be killed (except for the really really really rich) for the gnaws of despair from the shitheads that shittalk the homeless around them and really despise vegetarians and forest conservationists (and have for decades).
I'd argue that a plan you can poke holes in is better than no plan at all. As soon as you accept that collapse is inevitable then you can get ahead of the curve and try to adapt as best you can. It might not work, of course, but then that's true of pretty much everything in life.
But it needs to be organized. Until it's part of all our daily lives there will be no impact
I read that even food production alone sets us on trend for 1.5c... I lost hope when I read that
We produce more food than we consume. It is solvable, it's the inertia of cheap oil that will doom us.
Your not wrong. The most reasonable way to approach this would probably be carbon rationing. Hardcore, not the ‘essential’ businesses fiasco all over again. Massive cutbacks of consumer carbon burning through rationing, price increases on carbon burning, and other austerity measures. Subsidize carbon burning on the supply chain level. Force energy companies to play ball or nationalize them if they refuse. We would basically need to move to a control economy focused on ensuring the populace has adequate resources while massively curtailing carbon emissions. Secondarily there would need to be massive restructuring of society on all levels to encourage local infrastructure development around sustainability.
Carbon rationing and _degrowth in both population and industry worldwide_.
There is no scenario where one solution of the problem of growth gets this under control.
This was known long ago.
I wonder where we would be (humanity) if Nikola Tesla were to have lived out his ideas and technology ?
Maybe we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels by hooking a generator up to him as he spins in his grave.
The IPCC has historically kind of kept it on the "best case scenario" end with reports, and even then they've been pretty scary.
Ya know what that means? Oil refineries and fossil fuel based power generation is gonna be a huge target
Yes, and shipping/freight
Overconsumption. Buying useless shit and throwing it away only makes the rich richer
"Lets hope our political leaders...take heed."
This right here is whats the most tragic. Hope is what you have when every thing youve learned and every logical calculation tells you that youre wrong.
Keep seeing the same headlines and nothing is changing
Say it with me.
Faster and Furiouser
Please stop this ride
I think science and complexity/chaotic systems are were when finally realize we are not Gods.
Lmao wtf am I doing working bro
E bikes for everyone
The collapse will happen exponentially faster the longer we wait
If all of this is accepted, why aren't leaders getting off of their asses to save the planet? Cliche question, I know, but honestly if things are certain, why would anyone sit around and do nothing.
Because there is no out. We needed to get off our fossil fuel addiction 30+ years ago.
Right, I get that. I don't really know if there is no out. I don't really see any consensus on that point, but it may be true. Guess it depends on who you ask. There are a lot of conflicting articles about it being too late, period, or too late but not too late to stop the worst portion.
Results of climate change are not binary, they’re a spectrum. What do people mean when they ask “is it too late?”
Too late to save the many extinct species? Yes.
Too late to avoid permanent damage to major climate systems? Most likely.
Too late to avoid untold regional suffering as climate disasters intensify? Already seeing it.
Too late to prevent modern society from collapsing? Probably not.
Too late to prevent human extinction in the mid term? Probably not.
The sooner we start the better place we land on the spectrum. Better in terms of less suffering and less damage.
I was thinking of human extinction, but yeah not binary at all.
You mean, because it's becoming closer to literally sitting still in a house that is burning to the ground?
Well yeah basically.
> If all of this is accepted, why aren't leaders getting off of their asses to save the planet? Cliche question, I know, but honestly if things are certain, why would anyone sit around and do nothing.
I think they've given up.
They are 'getting while the getting is good.'
The elite do not believe they can save the world -- only their own asses. And to save their own asses, the status quo must first pay out as much wealth and power as possible. They will floor it straight into the wall.
Basically, these two items glued together:
From Medium: [Survival of the Richest](https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1)
>**After I arrived, I was ushered into what I thought was the green room. But instead of being wired with a microphone or taken to a stage, I just sat there at a plain round table as my audience was brought to me: five super-wealthy guys** [...]
>[...] **“How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”**
>**The Event. That was their euphemism** for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr. Robot hack that takes everything down.
>This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? **The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers** — if that technology could be developed in time.
>When the hedge funders asked me the best way to maintain authority over their security forces after “the event,” **I suggested that their best bet would be to treat those people really well, right now.** They should be engaging with their security staffs as if they were members of their own family. **And the more they can expand this ethos** of inclusivity to the rest of their business practices, supply chain management, sustainability efforts, and wealth distribution, **the less chance there will be of an “event” in the first place.** All this technological wizardry could be applied toward less romantic but entirely more collective interests right now.
>**They were amused by my optimism, but they didn’t really buy it. They were not interested in how to avoid a calamity; they’re convinced we are too far gone. For all their wealth and power, they don’t believe they can affect the future. They are simply accepting the darkest of all scenarios and then bringing whatever money and technology they can employ to insulate themselves** — especially if they can’t get a seat on the rocket to Mars.
>(26:28 - 27:58) **I'll tell you a little story I used to do when I did finance conferences with big finance.** You know, you have 25 of them in a room. All this sort of, the big money in the room. And I would say the following, talking about politicians and equality of political equality and it's gone down over time and that's a big problem. Blah blah blah, alright, so:
>**"How many of you folks would let the people you let run countries (by funding them) run money in your firm?"**
>And **they would all burst out laughing.** And then when the laughter died down:
>**"And now you can tell me what's funny about that?** Because ultimately your firms are dependent on the governance of those countries, on the public goods that they provide."
>And there was almost a moment of shame where they went oh shit, and this points to something that our Marxist colleagues have known for the longest time. That **while it's rational for an individual capitalist to maximize their short run interest, it's collectively suicidal if they all do. There is no ideal collective capitalist looking at the run long run. No matter how big you are, your most rational strategy is to grab what you can because you don't control enough to make sure you can dictate the final outcome. So that leads to this general sub-optimality of choices** which manifests itself in everything from taxes to decarbonization -- across a whole series of areas. And are they aware of this? Yes, they are. They all understand it perfectly well. And **do they have a solution? Yes, they do. Basically, the government should step up. And that's never going to be allowed to happen.**
Now you find what Hell is in Yankee Land
Have you ever been here? It's already hell. The people... My god. The people here are horrible.
While the Yanks may be the most annoying among the guilty, the rest of the world isn't innocent either, and the handbasket contains all of us.
its a quote from sicario hehe
Why is it that the same group of people that created the crisis and are profiting on the crisis are the very same people that declare that they have the only solution to the crisis. The solution that they will profit overwhelmingly over others?
Because...well, the real solution can't be uttered, as it is expressly prohibited by the terms and conditions of this, and most, websites.
I haven’t read the article, yet, but will assume “hell on earth” is a scientific term I can expect boundaries around. Let’s find out!
Update: Lots of natural disasters, that do sound horrible. But there aren’t butthole spiders, bees with teeth, Richard Marx music or flying shrimp. This might be more the medium place?
Welp, might as well ask. How is everyone hoping to die when the time comes? No more ifs, just whens.
Earth boutta become Venus 2: CO2 Boogaloo
LETS GET READY TO CRUMMMBLLLEEEEE!!!
Can anyone show me that this statement below is true? Or back up this statement somehow with evidence?
"In this respect, the real world may be running ahead of what the AR6 climate models can simulate. In particular, the extraordinary heat extremes observed recently in British Columbia, and the rainfall extremes over Zhengzhou and the Rhineland, lie well outside the range of what can be simulated by the AR6 models."- Prof Tim Palmer.
Oh I found back up myself.
"Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the recent extreme weather anomalies were not represented in global computer models that are used to project how the world might change with more emissions. The fear is that weather systems might be more frequently blocked as a result of human emissions. “It is a risk – of a serious regional weather impact triggered by global warming – that we have underestimated so far,” he said." - guardian 2nd July
The problem is he is about the only one saying it out of the dozen experts there.
**What I’ve gleaned: low probability but high impact events increase. 1 in 50 year storms are 4x more likelier of happening. The model used is too crude to explain the extreme events happening now and don’t take into consideration tipping points. Events may happen under 1.5C and may not above 1.5C. It’s just a number like a speed limit where going under doesn’t guarantee safety.
>“Sea level rise is one of the most pernicious, guaranteed consequences of global heating and, for the first time in an IPCC assessment report, we have estimates, not just of the likely range of values, but also the lower probability, high consequence estimates such as at the 5% confidence level. It is clear from these estimates that **a precautionary principle** is the only sane approach to take because the consequences of anything else are likely to be disastrous for society, especially beyond 2100. That might seem like a long way away but **there are millions of children already born who should be alive well into the 22nd century**.”
>The report now explicitly discusses compound extreme events, such as heat with drought, and fire risk.
oh, a new term for "faster than expected"?
>Prof Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor at the University of Oxford, said
>“The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) states that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land, and that this warming will continue as we keep emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is very hard to imagine any credible scientist doubting this. Indeed, **if we do not halt our emissions soon, our future climate could well become some kind of hell on Earth**.
>Prof Andrew Watson FRS, Royal Society Research Professor, University of Exeter, said:
>“The IPCC report gives a comprehensive update on the “knowns” of climate change over the present century, and it makes for grim reading. The report also makes the point that climate models don’t include “low probability-high impact” events that become more likely the more that climate is changed. These are events such as ice sheet collapse, sudden changes in ocean circulation, or catastrophic wildfires. These “known unknowns” are scarier still. An important reason for taking urgent action on emissions is to decrease the chances that one or more of these world-changing events will be triggered over the 21st century.”
It's like GHGs are coins/tokens. The more you put in the game, the higher the odds of winning a rare ~~prize~~ curse.
I keep banging this drum.
- 2100 is now closer than the start of WWII
- The future doesn't stop in 2100
- There are kids alive today who will party like it's 2099 because it is.
13GtC/Yr turned into 40GtCO2/yr until the 1TtC of easily accessible fossil carbon is all gone. In one last #terafart. A temperature rise of >5C. 200k years before CO2 and temperatures drop back again.
I had to do a double-take on that 1st bullet point there: 2021-1939=82 years. 2100-2021=79 years. Looks like the start of the pandemic is exactly halfway between the start of WW2 & 2100. Yikes.
You're more likely to convince a rabid trumpster that the covid-19 vaccine will in fact *not* magnetize your body than to immediately halt carbon emissions.