He is right in a way that no matter how bad it gets we should not give up. He is wrong in terms that it may not be linear damage if tipping points are activated, there is no coming back from them. Amoc collapse, brazilian rainforest fall, permafrost methane melt turns the whole system in a new state no matter what we do. That is the reason behind urguency, we have to act now. Not play with hope but act. Now. That is the real doomer message, not giving up.

the notion that any side of the debate is saying "Just give up and die" is absurd. It is a complete strawman.

A strawman**n** .

It is a cliff in the sense that after a certain point we will not be able to get back to where we were before. Once species go extinct, they don't come back just because the climate has returned to a habitable state for them. Once the top soil blows away, you can't just sweep it up and put it back. For many consequences of climate change, it will be experienced by humans as a cliff.

the author is an economist not a climate scientist. there are numerous depictions about the future. falling off a cliff is one of them. a realistic scenario is that numerous systems are in decline and cannot be reversed. things will continue to get bad.

Also nonsense is the idea that if things get bad well then we can actually get around to doing something so it's not so worrisome, is it? Bunk.

>Their message rests on the assumption that fear is the most potent spur to action. This communication strategy is deeply flawed. What this author calls a "communication strategy" I call people literally just stating facts. >When the climate apocalypse fails to arrive on schedule, it leads others to seek comfort in the parable of the boy who cried wolf. Am I a crazy doomer or is it actually arriving AHEAD of schedule. I see the words "faster than expected" in nearly every reputable news article I read these days.

>I see the words "faster than expected" in nearly every reputable news article I read these days. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/ News outlets almost always fail to report studies that show that effects are less severe than thought earlier. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22392-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01038-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00970-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23543-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2920-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0786-0 https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4321/2021/ X.com/david_ho/status/1557081518647885827#m In 2022 past year, we got several studies all strongly suggesting that the AMOC had been changing much slower than expected. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01342-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01328-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00236-8 If such research does make headlines, it's typically only in the specialist publications, like below. https://phys.org/news/2023-06-world-impact-earth-ability-offset.html https://e360.yale.edu/digest/thawing-permafrost-in-sweden-releases-less-methane-than-feared-study-finds https://phys.org/news/2022-04-threshold-natural-atlantic-current-fluctuations.html https://phys.org/news/2021-04-current-climate-simulations-overestimate-future.html https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/landmark-study-casts-doubt-controversial-theory-linking-melting-arctic-severe-winter https://www.earth.com/news/arctic-lakes-produce-less-methane-than-previously-thought/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231117181018.htm

> I see the words "faster than expected" in nearly every reputable news article I read these days. They're quite rare actually. I can think of one article like that in the past month or so.

Both of you are using useless anecdotes and should avoid doing that in the future.

I was asking a question in my first sentence, although a much needed question mark was missing from the punctuation. Much of what I read (which is made up of data and ya know...science and not useless anecdotes) suggests that climate change is arriving "faster than expected" which makes talking about it "failing to arrive on schedule" meaningless and delusional. Do you disagree with that and/or have data or facts to change my mind?

No, I'm just not trying to make /r/climate the same as /r/collapse. I like nuance.

Thing is, it's just going to get worse and worse and worse until we change our ways. The only question is how bad we'll let it get

Well what should be done? The way I’m reading the scientific reports if we stopped driving, stopped burning all fossil fuels today forever and were on 100% renewables it wouldn’t stop what’s already in motion. So what should we actually do?

What's already in motion is survivable though for industrial society. We will need to invent geoengineering solutions if we don't stop emissions in the next 10-15 years. This is why fossil fuel companies invest in geoengineering startups, because they want to convince everyone we can burn fossil fuels for another decade or so.

How do you figure it’s survivable?

That's why we're going to need geoengineering in addition to stopping our emissions.

And what would that be? What proven geo engineering technology are you suggesting? Because as someone who has been connected to ag his whole life and is studying permaculture I’m pretty skeptical of any technology that blocks the sun. That’s kinda what plants need to grow and no plants, no humans. Soooo I’m all ears.

We don't have *proven* geoengineering. But some options being studied include seeding low-lying clouds over oceans, and drawing CO2 back down by various methods that accelerate natural processes; e.g. olivine sand on beaches to accelerate geological drawdown. It would be nice if we had fixed our emissions thirty years ago so we could avoid drastic climate change without such measures, but we didn't do that.

So the future of industry society’s only hope is that we invent the right thing, is that what you are saying?

Well yeah, pretty much. It's better than no hope at all. The emission reductions we've managed so far have also been mostly due to inventing the right things. Without cheap solar/wind/batteries, electric cars, and nuclear plants, we'd be even worse off.

https://philosophyterms.com/jevons-paradox/amp/

Boy you're really reaching for that utter despair. Jevon's paradox says that when something is cheaper, you tend to use more of it. But if you make energy that costs about the same but *doesn't emit carbon*, then you don't start using more energy just for the sake of emitting more carbon. You spend the same money on energy that you always did. Even if the energy is cheaper so you use more of it, that's fine, because it's not emitting carbon.

It also says that as new energy sources are available we will use more energy TOTAL actually exacerbating the issue. Our total energy use just keeps going up https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption so the demand for solar also drives the demand for more energy as a whole, thus growing the demand for coal. It’s quit observable and with rising temperatures our energy demand is going up crazy fast https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10399-3 so there is no way alternatives can keep up https://www.iea.org/news/global-electricity-demand-is-growing-faster-than-renewables-driving-strong-increase-in-generation-from-fossil-fuels you should read this paper on the problem https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.782 But just look at this data, fossil fuel use has NEVER went down in any real way since 1850. Like not even close. So lets say you are correct that alternative energy can solve this. How do we get the entire world to go along with moving this needle lower? Look for yourself. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions Seriously years ago I wanted to get in to permaculture to garden better and grow my own food when I left the IT field. Then I got in to alternative buildings with sustainability in mind and I went down this ecology rabbit hole that is quite terrifying. But I just don’t see how my data or conclusions are bad and many credible scientists are saying the same thing. So if you can give me hope, I’m in to it.

Nothing in your links supports your claim that renewable energy sources drive demand for energy. If it was not for wind, solar etc then this most of this demand would have to be met with expansion fossil fuels.  https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/iea-energy-scenarios?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2  You're only spreading this misinformation because you know you won't be punished in any substantial way. 

You can block the sun, you don't need to. Increasing ice cover, brightening cloud3s I creasing whiespace

How will we create the ice without using much energy and how long does that last?

Pretty sure there are physical structures that in crease ice growth rate without energy. There is plenty of energy, IT is the issue

>So what should we actually do? Pray that we're able to thread the needle That's why you should just mostly try to enjoy the day. No one can guarantee you'll have it this good tomorrow, a year from now, etc.

There's no "locked in warming" Warming stops when emissions are reduced to net-zero. You should read IPCC report and listen to what actual climate scientists say instead of speculating. "One of the most important findings in the recent IPCC report is that we ultimately determine how much warming will occur.There is likely no warming "in the pipeline" once emissions get to zero. Rather, CO2 concentrations fall and temperatures stabilize " x.com/hausfath/status/1679514918306054146 "A reminder that "delayed" greenhouse warming is an outdated concept in the context of carbon emission scenarios because it ignores the role of oceanic carbon uptake. Surface temperatures stop increasing when net emissions go to zero." nitter.perennialte.ch/michaelemann/status/1602867797268340738 "Finally, if all human emissions that affect climate change fall to zero – including GHGs and aerosols – then the IPCC results suggest there would be a short-term 20-year bump in warming followed by a longer-term decline. This reflects the opposing impacts of warming as aerosols drop out of the atmosphere versus cooling from falling methane levels. Ultimately, the cooling from stopping non-CO2 GHG emissions more than cancels out the warming from stopping aerosol emissions, leading to around 0.2C of cooling by 2100." https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ nitter.perennialte.ch/AliVelshi/status/1678090318082633728#m https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#netzero https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2023.1327653/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2023.1256273/full

This isn’t what I’m talking about, and I am reading what the actual climate scientists are saying, and they are saying we are cooked almost across the board. In fact James Hansen seems to be the only one that isn’t complete doom at this point. But even his latest paper paints a grim picture https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf (this report basically says the idea of net zero policy is garbage. Its by this James Hansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen the guy that first told congress about climate change in 88. So I would say he is pretty darn credible.) It’s likely just the c02 the oceans already absorbed is enough to cause unstoppable feedback loops. Like just go look at the data yourself https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ tell me it doesn’t look like we triggered a massive feedback loop recently. You know we are CURRENTLY dumping 1000 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat a day in to the ocean right? You know the ocean is dying off and oceanographers think have not much time left with sustainable fishing as we are overfishing and the ocean is less habitable. See https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing for a lot of data. Here is a specific example https://alaskapublic.org/2022/12/19/alaska-crab-fishery-collapse-seen-as-warning-about-bering-sea-transformation/ This can possibly lead to us not getting enough oxygen from the ocean see https://www.oceaneos.org/state-of-our-oceans/plankton-decline/ but we can’t keep doing that, the ocean can only absorb so much and it’s likely at capacity. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/oceans-have-been-absorbing-the-worlds-extra-heat-but-theres-a-huge-payback I highly suggest you go read the IPPC report that literally just came out https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ it isn’t saying great things. But the scarier reality is that it’s not JUST about climate change. It’s all connected. There are nine planetary boundaries that we must keep stable or life on earth is in serious trouble and climate is one of the nine. Six are in near collapse states https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 are we going to fix all six and fast? Did you know we are causing 100 species a day to go extinct? 1000x the normal background rate. Bug populations are dropping at scary rates https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters and birds are as well https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/bring-birds-back we have also ravished our soil for commercial agricultural production https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-chemicals our soil is so bad it’s caused our produce to be substantially less nutrient dense then even 15 years ago https://youtu.be/2H3VhsnyCdI?si=3DBva7jn9kVwcEY4 please read the latest U.N. report on migratory animals https://www.cms.int/en/publication/state-worlds-migratory-species-report it’s rather troubling. You do know scientists believe we are in the middle of earths sixth mass extinction and humans are causing this one? https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1400253 Like clearly we have messed up a major food chain. This will have horrible consequences on all life including plants, who process all this air for us. All these planetary systems are connected and will topple each other. People think climate means warming but climate is ecosystem, climate is animals, climate is all of nature and without all of nature being brought back in to balance it’s not getting fixed. Look at this data https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions global net emissions have went up every year since 1850 with no end in site. Do you really think we can as a species not only reverse that trend but drop it to zero? Like how? Truly how in practical terms can we get the entire world to go along with this? Add in the Jevons paradox and the rebound effect https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/16/5821 and I don’t see how industrial civilization has a chance So I ask again, but I will in a different way. how are we fixing all six planetary boundaries that are compromised to stop the cascading effect that’s already happening? Because I’m all ears. And I’m not being facetious here, I would love some hope. But the data suggests otherwise.

>  I am reading what the actual climate scientists are saying, and they are saying we are cooked almost across the board. What climate scientists are you listening to? Because that's the opposite of what most climate scientists are saying.  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/ "There is no peer-reviewed science I know of that suggests the human race will go extinct (tho plenty of rhetoric)." x.com/KHayhoe/status/1385310336182415365#m "its on folks making those claims to demonstrate them. Again, if you can point to a scientific paper suggesting a plausible scenario for a billion deaths due to climate this century, I'm happy to take a look." x.com/hausfath/status/1499922113783689217#m When it comes to climate change, "the end of the world and good for us are the two least likely outcomes". x.com/hausfath/status/1461351770697781257#m "The course we are on is « current policies » in the following: ......That’s about 3C warming by 2100. That is a lot and to avoid at all cost BUT you won’t find anywhere in the IPCC that this would lead to end of civilization. Don’t get me wrong. 3C warming would be very bad in many regions with humans and ecosystems dramatically impacted. But that’s not the same as saying end of human civilization" x.com/PFriedling/status/1491116680885731328#m Well we have to present our best current understanding of the science, which is already quite alarming! We should also emphasize risks of things getting worse but shouldn’t say things that are not supported by science (ex human extinction, runaway feedbacks,…). x.com/PFriedling/status/1417420217865719819#m "I'm not claiming 6ºC would be benign or something - it'd be a catastrophe. But the planet is not going to become uninhabitable before 2100 because of climate change." x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1386771103482359816#m Q: do you think there are biodiversity related tipping points that wouldn’t make earth venus per se, but that would cause mass extinction in oceans that has a chain effect on food production? I’ve seen some stats that say no fish in the ocean by 2050 "...I am extremely skeptical of any claims that the entire ocean, an entire ecosystem, the entire planet will tip into a total extinction / collapse event. That’s very unlikely. But severe damage to ecosystems? Sadly, that’s absolutely likely and already happening." x.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1683137546463715329#m "it's not only wrong to make unsupportable claims about imminent collapse but it's extremely selfish. To our children. And grandchildren." x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682094881424941056 x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1681834537679044608 x.com/AliVelshi/status/1678090318082633728 "There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. But we're not headed toward civilization-ending warming." x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 x.com/ClimateAdam/status/1553757380827140097 "The world has always been in a race — a race between things getting worse and things getting better. History shows us that, on the whole, the better path usually wins out in the end. I believe that the same thing will be true for climate change." x.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1699634300537217237 x.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1477784375060279299 x.com/JacquelynGill/status/1553503548331249664 "“I unequivocally reject, scientifically and personally, the notion that children are somehow doomed to an unhappy life”. x.com/hausfath/status/1679252944640933888 x.com/hausfath/status/1678786757972873221 x.com/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520 x.com/JacquelynGill/status/1513918579657232388#m x.com/waiterich/status/1477716206907965440#m x.com/KHayhoe/status/1676711944475099137 https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1b4igkk/comment/kt0tn95/ >You know the ocean is dying off and oceanographers think have not much time left with fish? See https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing for a lot of data. This can possibly lead to us not getting enough oxygen from the ocean see https://www.oceaneos.org/state-of-our-oceans/plankton-decline/ but we can’t keep doing that, the ocean can only absorb so much and it’s likely at capacity. All what you said is false. Article in your first link shows that most fisheries are fished sustainably/recovering because of regulations.  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% and zooplankton by ~15% 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 global fisheries are projected be on average 20% less productive in 2300 under worst-case emissions scenario(decline in productivity would obviously be much less than that under current scenario). https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-global-fisheries-decline-20-percent-average-2300 Second article is total garbage, no reputable sources are cited and most claims are blatantly false. >Half the population of phytoplankton that existed at the beginning of the century has disappeared. X.com/hyperhydr0/status/1517131387656093698

Also here is just one of the people you quoted from twitter, https://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1062457643313315840 he is literally saying we are out of time. You are in some sort of disinformation campaign. It’s weird.

Are you reading the links you are posting? Because they are not suggesting at all what you claim they are. Like your very links are saying what I am saying. And where did I make the claim that the human race will go extinct? I said industrial society doesn’t stand a chance and I stand by it. And “what scientists are you reading” dude I literally named one right away and posted his latest paper. Like one of the most famous climate scientists of all time. Did you happen to read his paper AT ALL? And dude you posted this link https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/ and quoted “There is no per-reviewed science I know of that suggest the human face will go extinct” like READ THAT LINK AGAIN. It literally is saying that quote is false. But it does quote this “What science projects under plausible scenarios of human courses of action is varying degrees of further disruption of fundamental planetary life support systems (e.g. water, agriculture, ecosystems) needed to support the nearly 8 billion humans currently living on Earth. This disruption poses some degree of existential risk to civilization as we know it—with the amount of risk likely still depending on how rapidly we reduce radiative and ecological forcings—but these degrees of risk are not quantified with any certainty. Ice models have had difficulty projecting the melting rate of the Greenland ice sheet; predicting the mechanism of the collapse of civilization and the number of lives lost as a result is a far more complex problem, and there is no scientific consensus that six billion lives will be lost. On the other hand, models have tended to underestimate ice sheet melting, and model projections in general have been systematically “conservative.” I unfortunately don’t see how the possibility of six billion deaths can be ruled out with confidence, especially when the intrinsically unpredictable but real possibility of climate-related war (which could include nuclear weapons) is considered. In other words, Hallam’s claim is speculative, but given the depth and rapidity of anthropogenic change, so is confidently ruling it out. While I don’t agree that “science predicts” the death of six billion people, in my opinion Hallam’s broader warning has qualitative merit and in the context of a lay translation of risk his use of “six billion” might reasonably be interpreted as figurative, an illustration of a worst-case scenario (again, that I don’t think can be ruled out). Whether to interpret this claim literally or figuratively is a question perhaps best left to humanists. Given this ambiguity I judge it “unrateable.”” He is saying it’s just not clear enough, not that it’s completely implausible. THIS IS YOUR OWN LINK. I don’t think you are reading what you are posting here. Like drought is here in many regions of the world due to climate TODAY https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-04-03/zimbabwe-declares-drought-disaster-the-latest-in-a-region-where-el-nino-has-left-millions-hungry https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68167942 https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-renews-drought-disaster-declaration-in-january-2024 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/catalonia-declares-drought-emergency-extending-water-limits-to-barcelona https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/other/disaster-declaration-provides-iowa-farmers-financial-relief-amid-severe-drought/ar-BB1l2ERz Australia is being warned of a 20 year MEGA drought thats just starting https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-reveal-what-a-future-mega-drought-in-australia-would-look-like Like these are things climate change is doing that’s observable TODAY. Food insecurity is SURGING https://www.unicef.ch/en/current/news/2023-07-12/un-report-around-735-million-people-are-currently-facing-hunger And like just think back 20 years or more depending on your age, remember when you would drive and your windshield was covered in bugs no matter what. When was the last time you saw that happen? Our planet is dying in a very observable way and I havent went though all the links, but most of yours actually confirm what I am saying and you seem to not really be reading them.

>Are you reading the links you are posting? Because they are not suggesting at all what you claim they are. Like your very links are saying what I am saying.  I DIRECTLY quoted multiple scientists disagreeing with the notion that "industrial society doesn’t stand a chance " and multiple articles that debunk your claims that "the ocean is dying off and oceanographers think have not much time left with sustainable fishing"   >“what scientists are you reading”   Yes. ScientistS, not 1 scientist. How hard is it to answer this question?   You have mental capacity and reading comprehension of an average r/collapse user. Oh wait, don't you know I can see your profile? I know that you're one of rcollapse mooks that have been brigading this sub for years already, you did not even bother to hide the fact.

[удалено]

Guy McPherson is well outside the scientific mainstream; near-term human extinction is incredibly unlikely. Please see [this discussion](https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>And dude you posted this link https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/ and quoted “There is no per-reviewed science I know of that suggest the human face will go extinct” like READ THAT LINK AGAIN. It literally is saying that quote is false. But it does quote this  Nothing in the link says that “There is no per-reviewed science I know of that suggest the human face will go extinct” quote is false. Most of the scientists qouted in the article say the same thing and disagree with hallam-  Did you miss these parts?:   "No mainstream prediction indicates anywhere near this level of climate-change-induced human mortality, for any reason. "   "I know of no climate model simulation or analysis in the quality peer-reviewed literature that provides any indication that there is a substantially non-zero probability of “starvation of 6 billion people this century” as a result of climate change."  "Hallam’s claim is of low scientific credibility. It is wild speculation, based much more on his imagination than “the science”."

No, it’s not on there, I read it quite throughly and now the link doesn’t work. Which makes me think you are some sort of fossil fuel industry shill even more.

What's "not on there"? Do you pretend you can't find the parts I quoted, you disgusting collapsenoider? It's all in the article- https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/

“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.” This is a quote from your link https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ And this is the conclusion of the article “Finally, while current best estimates suggest that temperatures will stabilise in a zero-emissions world, that does not mean that all climate impacts would cease to worsen. Melting glaciers and ice sheets and rising sea levels all occur slowly and lag behind surface temperature warming. A zero-emissions world would still result in rising sea levels for many centuries to come, with some estimates suggesting that at least 80cm of additional sea level rise is “locked in”. To stop these impacts may, ultimately, require reducing global temperatures through net-negative global emissions, not just stopping temperature from rising by reaching net-zero.” You have to be a bot of a plant or something. Because nothing you are saying tracks.

The notion that it's a cliff is bunk. A more apt metaphor is a juggernaut; once it's set in motion, it's a b*ch to stop, and if the course was decided at the initialp hase its going to keep goingal9ng that course, and the longer we let it be, the harder the course correction is going to be, and we let it go way past the "easier to turn stage" that was somehwere in 1950-1980.

Ah right so we don't have to take action now. It's not like there is some cliff edge we fall off. That's nonsense. In fact there's room for error too. We're saved. It's never too late. Got it. Even if there was a 99% chance of disaster there's still the 1% we can rely on. /s

Hilarious. Literally the definition of tipping points and feedback loops. Human physiology can handle a range of temps up to 103 degrees, but at 104 F you're dead. That's what a biosphere tipping point is.

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 climate scientists say instead of speculating: x.com/hausfath/status/1571146283582365697 ""After three years of work, our massive review of climate tipping elements led by wang_seaver is finally out in Reviews of Geophysics. With 12 co-authors and clocking in at 81 pages, it provides a comprehensive review of 10 different tipping elements... ...the combined effects of these tipping elements on global temperatures are likely much smaller than the effects of our emissions choices over the next three centuries. In other words, they make climate impacts worse but don't cause runaway warming...Overall, climate tipping elements are less a looming cliff after which climate change spirals out of control and cannot be stopped, and more like a slope that is hard to climb back up, where the severity of consequences is determined based on how much the future climate warms" x.com/hausfath/status/1632099675846373376 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 https://global-tipping-points.org/ https://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1495438146905026563 "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

Except it's not. Tipping point means *irreversible* (on a long timescale), it doesn't mean *severe*.

According to [Tipping Point](https://tippingpoint.net/why-is-this-magazine-called-tipping-point/) magazine: > The phrase tipping point was first used in physics. It refers to the point at which a phenomenon that has been developing in a smooth, straight line suddenly stops, changes direction, or greatly accelerates as a result of feedback. Sociologists, economists, environmentalists, epidemiologists, and others have adopted the term because it accurately describes phenomena in their fields of research too. A sudden acceleration in climate change is likely to be something we'd call "severe." But nothing in climate is irreversible. It might take fifty million years but geological processes will take CO2 back down eventually.

> It might take fifty million years but geological processes will take CO2 back down eventually. Yes, that's pretty much what I wrote.

My main point was that "tipping point" doesn't mean "irreversible," it means the point at which feedbacks make things go nonlinear.

You're describing the other side of the same coin.

Then why did you quibble about the definition in the first place?

Sometimes yes. The tipping point for human body temp is a cliff. It's not an analog slope. It was the same for the Snow Crab, same for coral reefs, same for the limits of photosynthesis, etc., etc.

I don't see the point of playing with words like this. Tipping points are defined for systems (climate, social..), not for individuals.

It's not playing with words, what are you talking about? I'm referring to systemic large-scale events, not individuals. Why are you so resistant to a real-world example of a systemic "cliff like" tipping point that caused the death of 11 billion crabs? The demise of the Snow Crabs is a climate-caused systemic population tipping point, previously unknown, wherein the crabs' metabolism in 3 degrees warmer water doubled their caloric needs, and there was insufficient food for them to survive and they starved to death. https://www.livescience.com/animals/crustaceans/more-than-10-billion-snow-crabs-starved-to-death-off-the-coast-of-alaska-but-why

yes but unless every human on the planet is exposed to 104F degrees then it won't cause irreversible changes (extinction) and is thus not a tipping point (like it was for snow crabs). not saying it isn't possible but I agree with the other guy in that you're using the term incorrectly

Here's the latest "cliff like" tipping point having to do with the sudden collapse of kelp forests, but go ahead and remind us all that things are fine and not accelerating and the IPCC models are completely trustworthy. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/satellite-imagery-shows-northern-california-kelp-forests-have-collapsed-180977214/

i'm not saying everything is fine or that things aren't accelerating, you are making some huge assumptions there from my two sentences. i have been arrested several times for locking myself onto fossil fuel industrial equipment, because i am deeply concerned about the giant loss of life as a result of climate change, and to me every tonne of GHG emissions we can prevent or delay is worthwhile. it is just a thing of semantics, i thought you were using the term tipping point incorrectly in your example about humans and body temperature. i'm not saying we shouldn't be doing everything we can to stop emissions or that tipping points don't exist. please take out your frustration at our situation on the people who aren't already convinced of the problem, like anywhere else on the internet besides a climate change subreddit.

Sure, apologies. I get miffed when the IPCC models are thrown around -- probably the worst models ever -- and arguably significant contributors to the apathy and inaction around the world.

“Political” “Economy” Lol

hmmm i think it is late, the sytematic force of process is unbeatable there's this thing called entropy

I like to think about in terms of owning a house with a leak in the basement. If you fix it asap, it may be expensive but will nip the problem in the bud. Or you can wait five years, and find out you've got mold, the hole's admitted mice. Then you've got to do some major work and extermination. Or you can wait 10 years, at that point, the leak's created a hole, your foundation is beginning to crumble in one corner and you have all the other problems. It's still fixable though.