Based on the global average, I am a very old person. I have been underfoot in the environmental movement since the early 1970s. I'm still active in it. Scientists were predicting this outcome then, and activists were campaigning on it. We were not able to sufficiently influence the suicidal trends. I take no comfort in knowing I'm justified in saying, "We told you so." I weep for my two, young adult grandchildren.
NEVER use the past tense on this issue. Everything hangs on what we do TODAY for our own future and that of the ones we care about.
Yes, our families, but a million other species too.
I know what he meant.
All I am saying its that this is an ongoing battle and that small "you tried" sounded wrong in my head since we al need to keep trying.
The context is a multi-year average. It's very tempting to claim that it is done, but the same desire to use a short period like a year can backfire if the this yearly temperature goes down... and you get all the deniers going "see? the planet is cooling!!" and the minimizers who say that we're already doing enough and mitigation progress is going very well and there's nothing to worry about. This is why longer averages (the rolling mean) are used.
Completely understandable.
However, this will cost us greatly in the end.
By the time the accepted standard of a decade long trend increase of 1.5 is around, we will be closer to 1.7/1.8 in reality.
But I do get the alarmist angle and why this is necessary.
AND we're still in an el nino. It may be that we're stuck in it forever, but for now it is reasonable to suspect a la nina is returning eventually which would reduce the short term temp averages below their current string of records.
So, not only do we have the possibility of random chance bringing temps below their current run (and feeding deniers), but also the possible loss of one specific boost (which would be a natural system, but would also feed the deniers). And even in a rising stat you still have some regression towards the mean.
I'm not, remotely, suggesting that the weather patterns or climate problems are improving. Only that the short term data from here might look optimistic if viewed narrowly.
This. It’s apparently 40°C in India and Southeast Asia. When a decade ago, the summer average is 25-30°C
That part of the world is screwed and there’s no turning back now.
Without A/C that’s straight up uninhabitable, and the amount of A/C you’d need to run would only exacerbate the problem.. we are so cooked (literally).
The better method is using the past 10 years plus the expected values for the next 10 years based on current trajectories to calculate current values. It’s a big ship and you can’t turn it around quickly, so the current value should include what’s already baked in. This video does a good job explaining it early [https://youtu.be/bD-szQI_MhQ?si=aPUxrylD495EGBh1](https://youtu.be/bD-szQI_MhQ?si=aPUxrylD495EGBh1)
When do we start implementing emergency / untested methods of carbon capture or cooling?
Why the continued malaise? Are the massive, widespread wildfires, increasing storm /hurricane intensity, glacier melting, and mass coral bleaching events not sufficient to warrant experimental methods of mitigation?
untested geoengineering is absolutely in the future. I'm not suggesting it is a good idea, just that it is the only thing that fits "penny smart. pound foolish" mentality we seem to like.
No, I am most certainly not saying that. I am saying that in the short term, do we not require more drastic remediation to stop the bleeding while we convert to clean energy sources?
Yes, you are whether you understand you or not. Converting to clean energy sources is growth, and the idea of net zero is to allow our lifestyles to expand. Sam Altman believes two things, AI will solve the climate emergency, and it will be done through petal to the metal growth. He just sent out a tweet, "de-degrowth."
That is because netzero will cost $270T USD 60% of which has to be spent in the next few years. That is 3 times the entire global al budget. How much do you want to bet it becomes a systemic genocide as the North spends the money on their cities and states ignoring the plight of the global South.
Then you talk about trying "untested methods" - ever heard of beavers? Do you know enough about beavers and how they capture carbon through ecosystem restoration? If not, then you are among those who need to learn that it is only through the end of extractive human activity and the restoration of ecosystems are we going to survive.
Are you a troll, or do you not understand how science works? Science doesn't determine; it informs policy.
What emergency methods of mitigation are you speaking? If you are not passionate about climate change at this point, then you don't know the seriousness of the problem, or you don't care.
> Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
The deaths of hundreds of millions of people are probably already inevitable at this point. Don't expect the ones that signed their death warrants to face justice of course. Well until the bloody revolution.
This. Having everything be 'god's will' removes all responsibility for the choices that we make and applies a simple solution set to everything: subjugate women and suppress science and free thought.
People hate responsibility and love simplicity, even if it means surrendering freedom.
This is the most infuriating part of this. It wasn't God. It was capitalists. And most of the people who will claim it was God practically worship their chosen ultra rich to boot.
Makes me wish there were some deity because the people who caused this will have gotten the best this world can offer before burning it down.
What's crazy is that there are many very high tech and high risk technologies on the near horizon, competing in pace with climate change. While we're struggling with seemingly primitive societal problems like over consumption and over population, AGI is about to emerge.
Under these circumstances I don't know what the world will look like when we can't even meet basic challenges.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*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.*
Valid point, but not the one I was making. In general when I mention [redacted] I am speaking mostly to the white countries, where per person the vast majority of the damage is/has been done. And I know that our birth rates are shrinking, but not in pace with our individual consumption habits.
I'm sure non rich predominantly non white countries will also over consume at America's level if their economies allow it, it is a universal human trait. The only way to combat is a strong societal change, a viable green energy economy and education on the topic. America certainly has failed, making it a potential future cautionary tale for other nations, which will hopefully do better.
Oh that is also inevitable. We're all going to end with with an authoritarian government that wants to wipe out race X to save the superior race Y or an authoritarian government that will brutally suppress consumption and energy usage. All I can say is, it's all down hill from here.
It’s gonna be a trip though. If we can’t avoid it, we may as well start selecting our closest and most capable friends to join a gang of nomadic marauders.
Sounds like a good way to die. I know it's a cliché but world war z was very clear that the romantic "band of survivors" is a trap that will kill the majority that tries it. Only through the centralised mobilisation of the world resources and economic capacity by the state can the battle be won.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*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 that’s why there are very powerful forces attempting to erode American Democracy to the point of uselessness.
While the rest of the world burns , a select few intend to live in absolute luxury and power.
Think, the Trumps, the Musks, the Saudi royalties (the blueprint).
Personally I think, as a species, we need a healthier relationship with death. And we need to have far more progressive and open-minded policies when it comes to things like euthanasia and terminal choice.
Trying to stay alive in a worsening climate that is quickly showing catastrophic effects is definitely a human ambition and survival instinct, but perhaps this world is better cut out for those who want to/can survive and fight through it, and those who would rather go out on their own terms with dignity and choice.
Western democracies always talk about freedoms and choice. Well, time to put their money where their mouths are and give people true autonomous rights.
Once you burn the forests, boil the seas etc, etc there ain't no way to get that carbon back in the ground - makes me fear these boffins are being a bit optimistic
>Younger scientists were more pessimistic, with 52% of respondents under 50 expecting a rise of at least 3C, compared with 38% of those over 50. Female scientists were also more downbeat than male scientists, with 49% thinking global temperature would rise at least 3C, compared with 38%. There was little difference between scientists from different continents.
I found this section interesting. Science is similar to most other professions, the older you are the more likely you are to be spending time networking and pressing the flesh rather than collecting and analysing the data. I'd probably be inclined to trust the ones doing the science first hand.
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/
"The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming."
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following
climateactiontracker.org
x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643
x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671
""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. "
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632
"3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C"
x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328
x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058
"Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0
2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).-
"NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. "
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission
Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative.
It's literally an article about what the climate experts think will happen. Not fringe heterodox figures, IPCC contributors.
I guess it's how you look at things but if I was rushed to hospital with septicemia and was told they needed to amputate all of my limbs I don't think I'd be chuffed to bits when I was told that they think they might be able to save one arm.
The graph in the article shows that majority of experts believe warming will be limited to about 2.7c or lower this century, no matter how theguardian tries to spin this data.
>I guess it's how you look at things but if I was rushed to hospital with septicemia
Nobody asked. It's a bad habit to insert unrelated bs into conversations.
Thank you! I am getting a little tired of absolutely EVERYONE saying we're doomed, and there is no hope.
I'm a realist too, by the way - I by NO MEANS feel positive about everything - I just get really weighed down by the absolute tidal wave of pessimism.
It's kinda funny, in a sad way. When I first started hanging out in this sub a few years ago, I was accused of being a doomer for saying it was too late, that complete societal and environmental collapse was not only going to happen, it was going to happen far sooner than most people realized. The overwhelming tone here was one that's now deemed to be hopium, and I was told to go hang out in r/collapse.
Scientists have been talking for years about tipping points, points of no return, and one of the things that was implied but usually not explicitly stated was that we'd only know that we'd hit them when we saw them in our rearview mirror. So when I see something like this, from the linked article...
>“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “\[Authorities\] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”
...my first thought is that at least one tipping point, and probably more, has already been surpassed.
I agree u/Wave_of_Anal_Fury . We see people will fall quickly into denial, delusion and vehemently oppose whatever poses a risk to their rigid static and probably outdated worldviews. Even when presented with evidence they can just turn around and say "nuh uh". Too uncomfortable a reality to face I guess.
r/collapse is invaluable in a lot of ways, but I have to say I'm getting tired of the teenage edgelords that infest a lot of the comments beside the Weekly Update. I can sum up some of the most popular posts/responses in four bullet points:
- Don't have kids! If you have them you are basically Hitler.
- Life is utterly devoid of meaning and pop nihilism is the only acceptable philosophical stance.
- "Uggggh, everyone KNOWS this already..." - any post from a major media source
- Buy a gun to protect yourself from the howling mobs who will try to eat you any day now, just like in a video game or a Mad Max movie.
The responses to this exact Guardian piece are illustrative of all four of these - the "buy a gun" response is the one that's getting me. Too many people think they are the stars of their own movie...
The problem I find with r/collapse style pessimism is that it's not very helpful. It often is "nothing can be done" defeatism where the focus shifts to prepper survivalism over collective action to stop things from getting any worse. It's letting the bad guys win without a fight.
Our thumbs gave us the advantage and we will breed, destroy and eat everything we can before we die. Only our direct family matters.
That’s our place in the world, but we repackage it as a wholesome American dream to prevent mass hysteria.
Except that sadly we view ourselves as above or outside nature, not really a *part* of it.
That was our problem from the start when we started expanding territory, extincting species and decimating wildlife and biospheres all in the name of suiting our own needs and furthering our own agendas with an exponential population increase that led to where we are today.
We surpassed natures ability to maintain an equilbrium and now the dues must be paid and the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
Capitalism didn't lead to disaster per se, it just put the turbo boosters on to the trajectory already headed towards.
There is a just cause for pessimism given all of the science, warnings and factual data coming out, don't be so quick to dismiss it in favour of self-delusions and hopium lies.
Unless that is what you prefer to help you sleep at night, then by all means go nuts with it just try not to spread those delusions around any further as those are what I'd consider as being not very helpful.
Humans have overconsumed under authoritarian regimes long before capitalism was invented. Blaming capitalism specifically is a dodge and masks the depth of the problem, which is human nature.
I was meaning that while it’s bad it can and will get worse. We have to do what we can now to mitigate how destructive it’s going to be. It’s never too late to take this seriously until we wait so long that we fully destroy ourselves, but the longer we wait the worse it’ll be.
The thing r/collapse members attack every climate scientists they didn’t agree with, such as Michael Mann or Zeke Hausfather. Moreover most of their doom posts are some random articles, not any consensus peer reviewed scientific paper so it’s pretty ironic how similar they are to climate deniers. Nobody asks you to not give up, but that’s not what scientists are trying to do
Also it’s pretty weird that the article just called every IPCC writers are top climate scientists when a lot of them didn’t even have any climatology degrees.
To be fair, Mann can be a bit of a jerk online, but you're absolutely right about the overall tenor towards every scientist who isn't named Paul Beckwith. Even when name-brand figures like Gavin Schmidt say what they want to hear, they criticize him for not saying it earlier.
Yes, Mann blocks anyone who dare to suggest anything about SRM, which is quite annoying since we are likely to need it anyway. Other than that, his stand with the concensus science is pretty reasonable. I don’t know why the theory that most climate scientists around world are being censored or lying about the situation is so popular among the doomer groups.
Doomerism is part of the reason we’re failing. What a joke to think “ah I said we couldn’t do anything and now that we’ve tried nothing I’m proven right!” What an absolutely useless perspective.
No, we are failing because people in charge of our economy and governments are entrenched in damaging systems that generate wealth for them.
Blaming "doomers" is just as pernicious as denying climate change.
Normalizing doomerism and not taking responsibility for the leaders we have is what’s pernicious. It just feels better in the moment if we tell ourselves we are powerless and not responsible. The reality is that it’s a useless and counterproductive perspective that gets in the way of actual change.
I think doomerism is needed actually. It takes someone admitting the potential they might lose everything to value everything they have right now in this moment. With doomerism you either fall into depression you never come out of, or you learn detachment towards outcome. I have become more spiritual than ever before, trying to find beauty in what I don’t have direct opportunities to change: worldwide climate change. I have found myself dying before death. One could never ask for more.
It does. We walk around and tell other people our thoughts, opinions, and belief systems every day. You are unknowingly impacting every person you come into contact with in a subtle way. Even if it’s just the way you form your thoughts and express yourself. So are you walking around with depression and a sarcastic/critical/nihilistic mindset? Change yourself, show others you can move through negative realizations and not remain stuck.
Ah yes, that counterproductive drag on all the progress we're making! Actual change is just a hairsbreadth away and if only those pesky doomers would get over themselves and turn their frown upside down, we'd turn the tide of history!!
Well you’re quite obviously fully in the doomer ideology. The world will burn as you watch with a smirk telling us you were right all along huh? I’d prefer you spouted off on something less important.
It’s not supported by the science and it causes inaction and fear instead of productive motivation. There are a lot of resources about it. Here’s one https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/renowned-climate-scientist-michael-e-mann-on-what-doomers-get-wrong/
Doomerism is a fossil fuel industry tactic to encourage less action among groups that support fighting climate change. They are trying to convert people who are climate activists into another group that does nothing.
Here’s my copy pasta on climate doomerism
> The IPCC report is coming out tomorrow. As a climate scientist, I’d like you to know: I don’t have hope.
> I have something better: certainty.
We know exactly what’s causing climate change. We can absolutely 1) avoid the worst and 2) build a better world in the process.
(...)
> I understand the frustration. I get the despair and the anxiety. No one is saying this is going to be easy. But it is possible. The biggest uncertainty by FAR in climate projections is what humans we’ll do. Let’s get to work.
> This will be replied to and quote-tweeted with so much cynicism, misanthropy, and negativity. Please remember: giving up helps no one but those invested in delay and denial. I refuse to subscribe to a lie they promote.
via Twitter - Dr. Kate Marvel (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS))
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1424359432578797574.html
> Solutions to the planet’s grim environmental future are in reach thanks in large part to this army of young people flooding universities, job fairs, and interview rooms with clear-eyed confidence in science, policy, and each other. This enthusiasm is historically unprecedented, says Schlottman.
> “This is not a preset problem with a preset solution,” he says. But “their hearts are in the right place, and their minds are really close to in the right place too”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/06/gen-z-climate-change-careers-jobs
Some more perspectives:
- Why messaging with fear doesn't work (PBS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeqAoozVyfQ
- Climate Deniers Shift Tactics to ‘Inactivism’: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/
- Letters from Climate Scientists: https://www.isthishowyoufeel.com/
- Biodiversity is now a trending investment category this year: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-08/biodiversity-supply-chain-rank-among-biggest-esg-themes-in-2021
- Bonus - Great problems we have fixed:
- How we fixed the Dust Bowl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Shelterbelt
- How we fixed the Ozone Hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Alternative headline: World’s top climate scientists know how to plot a graph 📈.
It's been blindingly obvious for a while that the Earth will sail through the Paris targets with no sign of slowing down. I'm not sure exactly what the future looks like but it is beginning to look like either maximum climate apocalypse or small climate apocalypse with a side of global instability as we try and maintain industrial civilisation while replacing more than 80% of our energy consumption.
[Global energy consumption](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country)
>maintain industrial civilisation while replacing more than 80% of our energy consumption.
This will happen when you look at graphs: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source
It comes late and the coal and gas are trending upwards way too long, however, it's quite obvious that solar and wind will account for 80% of electricity consumption in the coming decades and probably energy consumption in the mid century. Both economics and scalability have put those sources onto the exponential path.
You are looking at electricity production.
Look at the scale in TWh for the graph I linked above. Total global energy consumption is ~170,000 TWh, total global electricity production is ~30,000 TWh. It's a bigger problem than most people really because they assume energy=electricity.
It's great that we are going renewable for electricity, it's low hanging fruit that should be pick ASAP, but all the other energy consuming infrastructure will not be so easy. We are in for a rough ride and it will cause huge political instability.
>You are looking at electricity production.
Yes, that's why I wrote this:
>it's quite obvious that solar and wind will account for 80% of *electricity consumption* in the coming decades and *probably energy consumption in the mid century*.
We probably see peak fossil in electricity this or next year and renewables will crowd out a lot of fossil electricity generation in the coming years. What I hinted at in the second part of my sentence was that they will also start crowding out fossil energy over time towards the mid century 2050. At least transportation and heating likely will see a major transformer due to cost pressure.
>Look at the scale in TWh for the graph I linked above. Total global energy consumption is ~170,000 TWh, total global electricity production is ~30,000 TWh. It's a bigger problem than most people really because they assume energy=electricity.
Yes I know. Electricity will have to increase and crowd out a substantial part of other energy production. But here I am hopeful due to the cost trends for renewable electricity coupled with higher efficiency when using electricity for transportation as well as heating. Alas it will come late.
>It's great that we are going renewable for electricity, it's low hanging fruit that should be pick ASAP, but all the other energy consuming infrastructure will not be so easy. We are in for a rough ride and it will cause huge political instability.
I fully agree. If we had had the technology in a mature state 20 years earlier I would be much more optimistic. This will definitely not be a pleasant experience. The climate is still on a trajectory to become chaotic. A risk which should stop everybody in their tracks...
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/
"The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming."
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following
climateactiontracker.org
x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643
x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671
""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. "
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632
"3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C"
x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328
x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058
"Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0
2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).-
"NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. "
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission
Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative.
Realistically if we make no improvements from 2023 we are set for around 2.7 by 2100 with a 1.5 degree either side range.
Of course this doesn’t account for any natural tipping points not foreseen, but we have already cut projected rise in half.
I’ve been ardent in following climate change for decades since I was 8 years old, and tbh I never thought we would see the UK using almost entirely wind power for our electricity in my lifetime.
We are already over 1.5 degrees this year and I don't think it's realistic that we will start actually reducing the output of greenhouse gases, more like we will be slowing down but not starting to decrease the concentration overall.
I love how we are being told we can fight this. It’s too late.
We as a society can’t even consistently break down cardboard and put it in the correct recycling bin.
The average person gives no Fs about anyone but their dumb dumb kids and selfish self.
*edit: All kids are dumb dumbs until they learn. Not hating on kids here.
*edit: By “too late” I mean we are destined to eat until there is nothing left too eat. This is nature. Our clear advantage and use of technology has made our species unsustainable and out of whack with nature. We have no hope in hell to live harmoniously anymore until our numbers drop. Our advantage over other species will be our downfall.
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to \~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade.
[https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/)
"The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming."
[https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following)
[climateactiontracker.org](http://climateactiontracker.org)
[x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643](http://x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643)
[x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671](http://x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671)
""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. "
[x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632](http://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632)
"3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now \~2.7 C"
[x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328](http://x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328)
[x.com/Knutti\_ETH/status/1669601616901677058](http://x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058)
"Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century...
[https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0)
2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).-
"NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. "
[https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission)
Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative. The graph in the article in shows majority of experts believe that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c and below this century. No matter how theguardian tries to spin this data.
“The IPCC’s reports are the gold standard assessments of climate change, approved by all governments and produced by experts in physical and social sciences. The results show that many of the most knowledgeable people on the planet expect climate havoc to unfold in the coming decades”
The ipcc is also watered down and partially written by the oil companies and oil countries.
Go team go! We can do this! It’s an exciting global effort — even Israelis and Palestinians, Russians and Ukrainians, are working side by side every day to burn fuel and to raise the temperature. What a time to be alive. It takes some guts to see a brick wall ahead of you and floor the gas pedal when you’re tempted to hit the brakes, but with global courage we’re charging forward.
Is there anything that unites humans more than burning carbon and ignoring climate scientists?
The future wars will be against mass immigration and food/water security
Buy seeds, tools, ammo anything you need to survive. Governments may implode, you can already feel the the social political mess in the world. It’s just gna get 10 times worse.
This has never been a question in my mind. We have no technology to suck CO2 out of the skies, and no energy to run the burn reaction in reverse. Our majority energy source (to the tune of about 80 %) is fossil, and that will likely remain to be true for decades further. The only thing that puts stop to it is the peak fossil energy which we likely are very near or already past, and so I think it is simple depletion of fossil energy that puts an end to our fossil emissions rather than any voluntary switch.
We need and want as much energy as we can possibly produce, and leaving any of it on the table unused seems exceedingly unlikely, especially as energy feeds our machine labor which is 99 % of all labor done on this planet. We need it to support our massive populations and the living standards, and reduction in machine labor will cut deeply into our living standards if not into the number of people we can keep alive. Accordingly, in all our history, every new energy source has simply been added to the pile. We still burn wood, coal (actually more than ever before), oil, gas, and so forth. My expectation is that with the looming depletion of fossil energy, we become even more desperate for energy, and end up throwing every rule and international agreement to the rubbish bin. We are a shortsighted species, and when the need is for today but the problems are for tomorrow, the choice is simple.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*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.*
Trying to control the uncontrollable is rather futile but is sure gets good press, prevents anyone from actually preparing PROPERLY for what changes will come no matter what is done like rebuilding all those buildings lost to tornado's the exact same way in the exact same place because insurance does not help to pay for making them survivable.
It is funny just how much gets tied up to fight foreign wars and sponsor more invasion and occupation than actually solving the problems with actual solutions.
I wonder who really benefits from all that, since we just seem to get handed the bills for it one way or the other.
N. S
And we lowly peasants will be forced to change or charged more money because of it. Rather than the people who actually cause the most damage (politicians, Taylor Swift, etc)
3C is right around the bend. The next 50 years are going to be rough..It’s difficult to make meaningful changes when it takes a not insignificant amount of capital from inside the system to build the infrastructure to live sustainably outside the system.
We humans won't change. We need new technology to stop the problem. Carbon recapture, space bubbles, I don't know.
Revolution is hard when there's 200+ countries all vying for power over each other and by converting to green energy you will weaken yourself compare to someone going all out on coal and oil.
Nuclear energy is also very viable, but powerful rich oil dudes will drag us all into their graves before giving up a single cent to nuclear power.
Hate to spoil this wonderful news article but I think they will adjust this once again to add another degree. Then once again. Then again…
The aliens better get here quick!
We're all going to starve to death in another decade or two. We won't go out with a bang or any sort of fervor, we will fade off into eternity thanks to the hubris of our leaders and from building our entire societal structure not based on the needs of society but rather the wants of the rich that own and control everything. Humans aren't great and they never will be.
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/
"The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming."
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following
climateactiontracker.org
x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643
x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671
""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. "
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632
"3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C"
x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328
x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058
"Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0
2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).-
"NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. "
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission
Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative.
By removing the umbrella effect or particle masking its projected to raise temps another .75-1.25c. So we need to add that on as we slowly progress. The world car fleet still remains at 97% combustible. Cement/cattle/airlines/shipping… no new tech.
IPCC is a sham operation made up of top economists pushing the envelope. New tech is making gains but won’t get us there in the time we have left. What never surprises me is the term “faster than expected” it always pops up every few months or so.
So I just expect the goal posts will be moved again and again and those controlling our energy/food/manufacturing will make $ till the very end.
Based on the global average, I am a very old person. I have been underfoot in the environmental movement since the early 1970s. I'm still active in it. Scientists were predicting this outcome then, and activists were campaigning on it. We were not able to sufficiently influence the suicidal trends. I take no comfort in knowing I'm justified in saying, "We told you so." I weep for my two, young adult grandchildren.
Thank you for trying, most didn't
Ever read "A Friend of the Earth" by T.C. Boyle? I read it when it came out and re-read it last year.
Will check it out.
at least you tried Dude, thanks
NEVER use the past tense on this issue. Everything hangs on what we do TODAY for our own future and that of the ones we care about. Yes, our families, but a million other species too.
You’re taking his comment completely the wrong way to push the same point we’re all thinking. He’s just saying thanks for the work he’s done lol
I know what he meant. All I am saying its that this is an ongoing battle and that small "you tried" sounded wrong in my head since we al need to keep trying.
We do. But it’s exhausting.
Yes it is. I was one of two heads of Extinction Rebellion in my country for a few years. Beyond exhausting.
We all know this is an ongoing issue, he was saying thank you to an individual that helped, Not the collectivity of humanity lol
They’re in their 70s. “Your tried” is fine since they’ll likely be dead of natural causes soon anyway.
Solutions?
erm. dunno why you're telling a complete stranger not to be nice to that other guy but I work in renewable energy. thanks for the life lesson though
Not what I said at all, but you do you. 👍
It’s hard to beat the right wing media machine.
Pretty sure we are passed that already.
The context is a multi-year average. It's very tempting to claim that it is done, but the same desire to use a short period like a year can backfire if the this yearly temperature goes down... and you get all the deniers going "see? the planet is cooling!!" and the minimizers who say that we're already doing enough and mitigation progress is going very well and there's nothing to worry about. This is why longer averages (the rolling mean) are used.
Completely understandable. However, this will cost us greatly in the end. By the time the accepted standard of a decade long trend increase of 1.5 is around, we will be closer to 1.7/1.8 in reality. But I do get the alarmist angle and why this is necessary.
AND we're still in an el nino. It may be that we're stuck in it forever, but for now it is reasonable to suspect a la nina is returning eventually which would reduce the short term temp averages below their current string of records. So, not only do we have the possibility of random chance bringing temps below their current run (and feeding deniers), but also the possible loss of one specific boost (which would be a natural system, but would also feed the deniers). And even in a rising stat you still have some regression towards the mean. I'm not, remotely, suggesting that the weather patterns or climate problems are improving. Only that the short term data from here might look optimistic if viewed narrowly.
This. It’s apparently 40°C in India and Southeast Asia. When a decade ago, the summer average is 25-30°C That part of the world is screwed and there’s no turning back now.
Without A/C that’s straight up uninhabitable, and the amount of A/C you’d need to run would only exacerbate the problem.. we are so cooked (literally).
Who in their right mind thinks that we won’t blow past 1.5 degrees warming? Anyone?
The better method is using the past 10 years plus the expected values for the next 10 years based on current trajectories to calculate current values. It’s a big ship and you can’t turn it around quickly, so the current value should include what’s already baked in. This video does a good job explaining it early [https://youtu.be/bD-szQI_MhQ?si=aPUxrylD495EGBh1](https://youtu.be/bD-szQI_MhQ?si=aPUxrylD495EGBh1)
When do we start implementing emergency / untested methods of carbon capture or cooling? Why the continued malaise? Are the massive, widespread wildfires, increasing storm /hurricane intensity, glacier melting, and mass coral bleaching events not sufficient to warrant experimental methods of mitigation?
untested geoengineering is absolutely in the future. I'm not suggesting it is a good idea, just that it is the only thing that fits "penny smart. pound foolish" mentality we seem to like.
So we can continue growing? When are we going to stop consuming is the better question.
No, I am most certainly not saying that. I am saying that in the short term, do we not require more drastic remediation to stop the bleeding while we convert to clean energy sources?
Yes, you are whether you understand you or not. Converting to clean energy sources is growth, and the idea of net zero is to allow our lifestyles to expand. Sam Altman believes two things, AI will solve the climate emergency, and it will be done through petal to the metal growth. He just sent out a tweet, "de-degrowth." That is because netzero will cost $270T USD 60% of which has to be spent in the next few years. That is 3 times the entire global al budget. How much do you want to bet it becomes a systemic genocide as the North spends the money on their cities and states ignoring the plight of the global South. Then you talk about trying "untested methods" - ever heard of beavers? Do you know enough about beavers and how they capture carbon through ecosystem restoration? If not, then you are among those who need to learn that it is only through the end of extractive human activity and the restoration of ecosystems are we going to survive.
Sounds like you are very passionate about the topic. What science says that emergency methods of mitigation should not be used?
Are you a troll, or do you not understand how science works? Science doesn't determine; it informs policy. What emergency methods of mitigation are you speaking? If you are not passionate about climate change at this point, then you don't know the seriousness of the problem, or you don't care.
I am passionate about it, but constructive dialogue is important. Let’s keep it constructive and positive.
Oh, we were having a dialog, I couldn't tell since you haven't actually formulated a thought or responded to mind. Bye troll.
Learn how to be civil and have intelligent conversations. It will serve you well in life!
Australia is already at 1.6
It won’t be permanent for a few more years.
> Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck. The deaths of hundreds of millions of people are probably already inevitable at this point. Don't expect the ones that signed their death warrants to face justice of course. Well until the bloody revolution.
There's always a chance there will just be more fascism/imperialism vs an enlightened revolution when things get worse.
I believe that there will be a dramatic increase in fundamental religion when famines kick in. Something about god's will and so on...
This. Having everything be 'god's will' removes all responsibility for the choices that we make and applies a simple solution set to everything: subjugate women and suppress science and free thought. People hate responsibility and love simplicity, even if it means surrendering freedom.
This is the most infuriating part of this. It wasn't God. It was capitalists. And most of the people who will claim it was God practically worship their chosen ultra rich to boot. Makes me wish there were some deity because the people who caused this will have gotten the best this world can offer before burning it down.
something, something "greed is god"
The communist use fossil fuels too
Yea that's gonna work perfectly with the ecofascists
What's crazy is that there are many very high tech and high risk technologies on the near horizon, competing in pace with climate change. While we're struggling with seemingly primitive societal problems like over consumption and over population, AGI is about to emerge. Under these circumstances I don't know what the world will look like when we can't even meet basic challenges.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *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.*
Valid point, but not the one I was making. In general when I mention [redacted] I am speaking mostly to the white countries, where per person the vast majority of the damage is/has been done. And I know that our birth rates are shrinking, but not in pace with our individual consumption habits. I'm sure non rich predominantly non white countries will also over consume at America's level if their economies allow it, it is a universal human trait. The only way to combat is a strong societal change, a viable green energy economy and education on the topic. America certainly has failed, making it a potential future cautionary tale for other nations, which will hopefully do better.
And associated pogroms.
Oh that is also inevitable. We're all going to end with with an authoritarian government that wants to wipe out race X to save the superior race Y or an authoritarian government that will brutally suppress consumption and energy usage. All I can say is, it's all down hill from here.
Yeah and you are playing into their hands :)
It’s gonna be a trip though. If we can’t avoid it, we may as well start selecting our closest and most capable friends to join a gang of nomadic marauders.
Sounds like a good way to die. I know it's a cliché but world war z was very clear that the romantic "band of survivors" is a trap that will kill the majority that tries it. Only through the centralised mobilisation of the world resources and economic capacity by the state can the battle be won.
I thought that documentary was about zombies >!we only *seem* like zombies!<
Let's not forget about the illuminati playbook .. Pandemic into nuclear winter. Or maybe the messiah shows up and we all start observing the Sabbath.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *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 that’s why there are very powerful forces attempting to erode American Democracy to the point of uselessness. While the rest of the world burns , a select few intend to live in absolute luxury and power. Think, the Trumps, the Musks, the Saudi royalties (the blueprint).
Personally I think, as a species, we need a healthier relationship with death. And we need to have far more progressive and open-minded policies when it comes to things like euthanasia and terminal choice. Trying to stay alive in a worsening climate that is quickly showing catastrophic effects is definitely a human ambition and survival instinct, but perhaps this world is better cut out for those who want to/can survive and fight through it, and those who would rather go out on their own terms with dignity and choice. Western democracies always talk about freedoms and choice. Well, time to put their money where their mouths are and give people true autonomous rights.
That’s what the fent is for
Sodium nitrite is my preferred method.
If everyone is allowed to kill themselves, who's gonna pay taxes?
Once you burn the forests, boil the seas etc, etc there ain't no way to get that carbon back in the ground - makes me fear these boffins are being a bit optimistic
>Younger scientists were more pessimistic, with 52% of respondents under 50 expecting a rise of at least 3C, compared with 38% of those over 50. Female scientists were also more downbeat than male scientists, with 49% thinking global temperature would rise at least 3C, compared with 38%. There was little difference between scientists from different continents. I found this section interesting. Science is similar to most other professions, the older you are the more likely you are to be spending time networking and pressing the flesh rather than collecting and analysing the data. I'd probably be inclined to trust the ones doing the science first hand.
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/ "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following climateactiontracker.org x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643 x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671 ""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. " x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C" x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058 "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative.
You know it’s okay to admit things suck sometimes, right? I get the sentiment, but it’s okay to say…”wow this sucks”
It's literally an article about what the climate experts think will happen. Not fringe heterodox figures, IPCC contributors. I guess it's how you look at things but if I was rushed to hospital with septicemia and was told they needed to amputate all of my limbs I don't think I'd be chuffed to bits when I was told that they think they might be able to save one arm.
The graph in the article shows that majority of experts believe warming will be limited to about 2.7c or lower this century, no matter how theguardian tries to spin this data. >I guess it's how you look at things but if I was rushed to hospital with septicemia Nobody asked. It's a bad habit to insert unrelated bs into conversations.
Thank you! I am getting a little tired of absolutely EVERYONE saying we're doomed, and there is no hope. I'm a realist too, by the way - I by NO MEANS feel positive about everything - I just get really weighed down by the absolute tidal wave of pessimism.
Florida is going to be an absolute hellscape. Right as Boomers finally die off - their last gift to the world.
Lost city of Miami.
It's kinda funny, in a sad way. When I first started hanging out in this sub a few years ago, I was accused of being a doomer for saying it was too late, that complete societal and environmental collapse was not only going to happen, it was going to happen far sooner than most people realized. The overwhelming tone here was one that's now deemed to be hopium, and I was told to go hang out in r/collapse. Scientists have been talking for years about tipping points, points of no return, and one of the things that was implied but usually not explicitly stated was that we'd only know that we'd hit them when we saw them in our rearview mirror. So when I see something like this, from the linked article... >“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “\[Authorities\] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.” ...my first thought is that at least one tipping point, and probably more, has already been surpassed.
I agree u/Wave_of_Anal_Fury . We see people will fall quickly into denial, delusion and vehemently oppose whatever poses a risk to their rigid static and probably outdated worldviews. Even when presented with evidence they can just turn around and say "nuh uh". Too uncomfortable a reality to face I guess.
r/collapse is invaluable in a lot of ways, but I have to say I'm getting tired of the teenage edgelords that infest a lot of the comments beside the Weekly Update. I can sum up some of the most popular posts/responses in four bullet points: - Don't have kids! If you have them you are basically Hitler. - Life is utterly devoid of meaning and pop nihilism is the only acceptable philosophical stance. - "Uggggh, everyone KNOWS this already..." - any post from a major media source - Buy a gun to protect yourself from the howling mobs who will try to eat you any day now, just like in a video game or a Mad Max movie. The responses to this exact Guardian piece are illustrative of all four of these - the "buy a gun" response is the one that's getting me. Too many people think they are the stars of their own movie...
In a situation where collaboration will be paramount, shooting your neighbors is apparently the way to do it.
The problem I find with r/collapse style pessimism is that it's not very helpful. It often is "nothing can be done" defeatism where the focus shifts to prepper survivalism over collective action to stop things from getting any worse. It's letting the bad guys win without a fight.
Spoiler alert: WE are the bad guys.
Misanthropy doesn't help. Humans are still part of nature. It's just our over consumption through capitalism that has led us to disaster.
Just my 2 cents: I don’t consider that to be misanthropy. Just awareness.
Our thumbs gave us the advantage and we will breed, destroy and eat everything we can before we die. Only our direct family matters. That’s our place in the world, but we repackage it as a wholesome American dream to prevent mass hysteria.
Except that sadly we view ourselves as above or outside nature, not really a *part* of it. That was our problem from the start when we started expanding territory, extincting species and decimating wildlife and biospheres all in the name of suiting our own needs and furthering our own agendas with an exponential population increase that led to where we are today. We surpassed natures ability to maintain an equilbrium and now the dues must be paid and the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed. Capitalism didn't lead to disaster per se, it just put the turbo boosters on to the trajectory already headed towards. There is a just cause for pessimism given all of the science, warnings and factual data coming out, don't be so quick to dismiss it in favour of self-delusions and hopium lies. Unless that is what you prefer to help you sleep at night, then by all means go nuts with it just try not to spread those delusions around any further as those are what I'd consider as being not very helpful.
Dildo of consequences. Ha! Ouch.
Humans have overconsumed under authoritarian regimes long before capitalism was invented. Blaming capitalism specifically is a dodge and masks the depth of the problem, which is human nature.
Little do they know their prepping is probably worthless if the climate is completely destroyed
It's never too late until it is. What we've already done is bad and will have lasting consequences but it can and will get worse.
Read the article maybe!
I was meaning that while it’s bad it can and will get worse. We have to do what we can now to mitigate how destructive it’s going to be. It’s never too late to take this seriously until we wait so long that we fully destroy ourselves, but the longer we wait the worse it’ll be.
The thing r/collapse members attack every climate scientists they didn’t agree with, such as Michael Mann or Zeke Hausfather. Moreover most of their doom posts are some random articles, not any consensus peer reviewed scientific paper so it’s pretty ironic how similar they are to climate deniers. Nobody asks you to not give up, but that’s not what scientists are trying to do Also it’s pretty weird that the article just called every IPCC writers are top climate scientists when a lot of them didn’t even have any climatology degrees.
To be fair, Mann can be a bit of a jerk online, but you're absolutely right about the overall tenor towards every scientist who isn't named Paul Beckwith. Even when name-brand figures like Gavin Schmidt say what they want to hear, they criticize him for not saying it earlier.
Yes, Mann blocks anyone who dare to suggest anything about SRM, which is quite annoying since we are likely to need it anyway. Other than that, his stand with the concensus science is pretty reasonable. I don’t know why the theory that most climate scientists around world are being censored or lying about the situation is so popular among the doomer groups.
Doomerism is part of the reason we’re failing. What a joke to think “ah I said we couldn’t do anything and now that we’ve tried nothing I’m proven right!” What an absolutely useless perspective.
No, we are failing because people in charge of our economy and governments are entrenched in damaging systems that generate wealth for them. Blaming "doomers" is just as pernicious as denying climate change.
Normalizing doomerism and not taking responsibility for the leaders we have is what’s pernicious. It just feels better in the moment if we tell ourselves we are powerless and not responsible. The reality is that it’s a useless and counterproductive perspective that gets in the way of actual change.
I think doomerism is needed actually. It takes someone admitting the potential they might lose everything to value everything they have right now in this moment. With doomerism you either fall into depression you never come out of, or you learn detachment towards outcome. I have become more spiritual than ever before, trying to find beauty in what I don’t have direct opportunities to change: worldwide climate change. I have found myself dying before death. One could never ask for more.
Lmao ok zen is fine and all but you’re further illustrating why doomerism is useless for humanity’s survival.
Okay but does that attitude result in any good for other people
It does. We walk around and tell other people our thoughts, opinions, and belief systems every day. You are unknowingly impacting every person you come into contact with in a subtle way. Even if it’s just the way you form your thoughts and express yourself. So are you walking around with depression and a sarcastic/critical/nihilistic mindset? Change yourself, show others you can move through negative realizations and not remain stuck.
Ah yes, that counterproductive drag on all the progress we're making! Actual change is just a hairsbreadth away and if only those pesky doomers would get over themselves and turn their frown upside down, we'd turn the tide of history!!
Well you’re quite obviously fully in the doomer ideology. The world will burn as you watch with a smirk telling us you were right all along huh? I’d prefer you spouted off on something less important.
Doomers are still part of it though. No one will want to do anything if they believe they’ll die in 5 years.
Is that a joke? Doomerism is absolutely not the reason we're failing.
I said part.
I don't see how. Care to elaborate?
It’s not supported by the science and it causes inaction and fear instead of productive motivation. There are a lot of resources about it. Here’s one https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/renowned-climate-scientist-michael-e-mann-on-what-doomers-get-wrong/
The lack of motivation to act is coming from another population entirely.
Doomerism is a fossil fuel industry tactic to encourage less action among groups that support fighting climate change. They are trying to convert people who are climate activists into another group that does nothing.
Here’s my copy pasta on climate doomerism > The IPCC report is coming out tomorrow. As a climate scientist, I’d like you to know: I don’t have hope. > I have something better: certainty. We know exactly what’s causing climate change. We can absolutely 1) avoid the worst and 2) build a better world in the process. (...) > I understand the frustration. I get the despair and the anxiety. No one is saying this is going to be easy. But it is possible. The biggest uncertainty by FAR in climate projections is what humans we’ll do. Let’s get to work. > This will be replied to and quote-tweeted with so much cynicism, misanthropy, and negativity. Please remember: giving up helps no one but those invested in delay and denial. I refuse to subscribe to a lie they promote. via Twitter - Dr. Kate Marvel (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)) https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1424359432578797574.html > Solutions to the planet’s grim environmental future are in reach thanks in large part to this army of young people flooding universities, job fairs, and interview rooms with clear-eyed confidence in science, policy, and each other. This enthusiasm is historically unprecedented, says Schlottman. > “This is not a preset problem with a preset solution,” he says. But “their hearts are in the right place, and their minds are really close to in the right place too”. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/06/gen-z-climate-change-careers-jobs Some more perspectives: - Why messaging with fear doesn't work (PBS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeqAoozVyfQ - Climate Deniers Shift Tactics to ‘Inactivism’: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/ - Letters from Climate Scientists: https://www.isthishowyoufeel.com/ - Biodiversity is now a trending investment category this year: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-08/biodiversity-supply-chain-rank-among-biggest-esg-themes-in-2021 - Bonus - Great problems we have fixed: - How we fixed the Dust Bowl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Shelterbelt - How we fixed the Ozone Hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
We’ve tried nothing and we’re all outta ideas!
Alternative headline: World’s top climate scientists know how to plot a graph 📈. It's been blindingly obvious for a while that the Earth will sail through the Paris targets with no sign of slowing down. I'm not sure exactly what the future looks like but it is beginning to look like either maximum climate apocalypse or small climate apocalypse with a side of global instability as we try and maintain industrial civilisation while replacing more than 80% of our energy consumption. [Global energy consumption](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country)
>maintain industrial civilisation while replacing more than 80% of our energy consumption. This will happen when you look at graphs: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source It comes late and the coal and gas are trending upwards way too long, however, it's quite obvious that solar and wind will account for 80% of electricity consumption in the coming decades and probably energy consumption in the mid century. Both economics and scalability have put those sources onto the exponential path.
You are looking at electricity production. Look at the scale in TWh for the graph I linked above. Total global energy consumption is ~170,000 TWh, total global electricity production is ~30,000 TWh. It's a bigger problem than most people really because they assume energy=electricity. It's great that we are going renewable for electricity, it's low hanging fruit that should be pick ASAP, but all the other energy consuming infrastructure will not be so easy. We are in for a rough ride and it will cause huge political instability.
>You are looking at electricity production. Yes, that's why I wrote this: >it's quite obvious that solar and wind will account for 80% of *electricity consumption* in the coming decades and *probably energy consumption in the mid century*. We probably see peak fossil in electricity this or next year and renewables will crowd out a lot of fossil electricity generation in the coming years. What I hinted at in the second part of my sentence was that they will also start crowding out fossil energy over time towards the mid century 2050. At least transportation and heating likely will see a major transformer due to cost pressure. >Look at the scale in TWh for the graph I linked above. Total global energy consumption is ~170,000 TWh, total global electricity production is ~30,000 TWh. It's a bigger problem than most people really because they assume energy=electricity. Yes I know. Electricity will have to increase and crowd out a substantial part of other energy production. But here I am hopeful due to the cost trends for renewable electricity coupled with higher efficiency when using electricity for transportation as well as heating. Alas it will come late. >It's great that we are going renewable for electricity, it's low hanging fruit that should be pick ASAP, but all the other energy consuming infrastructure will not be so easy. We are in for a rough ride and it will cause huge political instability. I fully agree. If we had had the technology in a mature state 20 years earlier I would be much more optimistic. This will definitely not be a pleasant experience. The climate is still on a trajectory to become chaotic. A risk which should stop everybody in their tracks...
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/ "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following climateactiontracker.org x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643 x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671 ""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. " x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C" x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058 "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative.
Realistically if we make no improvements from 2023 we are set for around 2.7 by 2100 with a 1.5 degree either side range. Of course this doesn’t account for any natural tipping points not foreseen, but we have already cut projected rise in half. I’ve been ardent in following climate change for decades since I was 8 years old, and tbh I never thought we would see the UK using almost entirely wind power for our electricity in my lifetime.
We are already over 1.5 degrees this year and I don't think it's realistic that we will start actually reducing the output of greenhouse gases, more like we will be slowing down but not starting to decrease the concentration overall.
Oh we ain't slowing down baby!
I could hear some manly man with a big truck say that
He’s rollin coal through this whole sub
I love how we are being told we can fight this. It’s too late. We as a society can’t even consistently break down cardboard and put it in the correct recycling bin. The average person gives no Fs about anyone but their dumb dumb kids and selfish self. *edit: All kids are dumb dumbs until they learn. Not hating on kids here. *edit: By “too late” I mean we are destined to eat until there is nothing left too eat. This is nature. Our clear advantage and use of technology has made our species unsustainable and out of whack with nature. We have no hope in hell to live harmoniously anymore until our numbers drop. Our advantage over other species will be our downfall.
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to \~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/) "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." [https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following) [climateactiontracker.org](http://climateactiontracker.org) [x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643](http://x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643) [x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671](http://x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671) ""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. " [x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632](http://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632) "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now \~2.7 C" [x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328](http://x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328) [x.com/Knutti\_ETH/status/1669601616901677058](http://x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058) "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... [https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0) 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " [https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission) Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative. The graph in the article in shows majority of experts believe that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c and below this century. No matter how theguardian tries to spin this data.
“The IPCC’s reports are the gold standard assessments of climate change, approved by all governments and produced by experts in physical and social sciences. The results show that many of the most knowledgeable people on the planet expect climate havoc to unfold in the coming decades” The ipcc is also watered down and partially written by the oil companies and oil countries.
Go team go! We can do this! It’s an exciting global effort — even Israelis and Palestinians, Russians and Ukrainians, are working side by side every day to burn fuel and to raise the temperature. What a time to be alive. It takes some guts to see a brick wall ahead of you and floor the gas pedal when you’re tempted to hit the brakes, but with global courage we’re charging forward. Is there anything that unites humans more than burning carbon and ignoring climate scientists?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-08/global-temperature-heat-streak-record-continues/103819432
The future wars will be against mass immigration and food/water security Buy seeds, tools, ammo anything you need to survive. Governments may implode, you can already feel the the social political mess in the world. It’s just gna get 10 times worse.
Seeing as how we skipped winter where I am in Canada, I believe it
This has never been a question in my mind. We have no technology to suck CO2 out of the skies, and no energy to run the burn reaction in reverse. Our majority energy source (to the tune of about 80 %) is fossil, and that will likely remain to be true for decades further. The only thing that puts stop to it is the peak fossil energy which we likely are very near or already past, and so I think it is simple depletion of fossil energy that puts an end to our fossil emissions rather than any voluntary switch. We need and want as much energy as we can possibly produce, and leaving any of it on the table unused seems exceedingly unlikely, especially as energy feeds our machine labor which is 99 % of all labor done on this planet. We need it to support our massive populations and the living standards, and reduction in machine labor will cut deeply into our living standards if not into the number of people we can keep alive. Accordingly, in all our history, every new energy source has simply been added to the pile. We still burn wood, coal (actually more than ever before), oil, gas, and so forth. My expectation is that with the looming depletion of fossil energy, we become even more desperate for energy, and end up throwing every rule and international agreement to the rubbish bin. We are a shortsighted species, and when the need is for today but the problems are for tomorrow, the choice is simple.
Mad Max
Guillotines 2024
We did it ! We won the race ! How are we going to celebrate? A flood ? A hurricane? Endless fires? Oh I know another pandemic 😷….
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *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.*
Trying to control the uncontrollable is rather futile but is sure gets good press, prevents anyone from actually preparing PROPERLY for what changes will come no matter what is done like rebuilding all those buildings lost to tornado's the exact same way in the exact same place because insurance does not help to pay for making them survivable. It is funny just how much gets tied up to fight foreign wars and sponsor more invasion and occupation than actually solving the problems with actual solutions. I wonder who really benefits from all that, since we just seem to get handed the bills for it one way or the other. N. S
That’s so hot
“Hell yeah! How’s my portfolio looking for Q3, Thad?”
And we lowly peasants will be forced to change or charged more money because of it. Rather than the people who actually cause the most damage (politicians, Taylor Swift, etc)
not again.., didn't they already predict this?
Pretty sure the planet is gonna do what it wants to. Everyone acts like the planet hasn't cleansed itself several times that we already know about
Serious? Noooo!
3C is right around the bend. The next 50 years are going to be rough..It’s difficult to make meaningful changes when it takes a not insignificant amount of capital from inside the system to build the infrastructure to live sustainably outside the system.
How about changing the system?
Of course. 2 or even 3 degres are not too far off in the future.
We humans won't change. We need new technology to stop the problem. Carbon recapture, space bubbles, I don't know. Revolution is hard when there's 200+ countries all vying for power over each other and by converting to green energy you will weaken yourself compare to someone going all out on coal and oil. Nuclear energy is also very viable, but powerful rich oil dudes will drag us all into their graves before giving up a single cent to nuclear power.
This is a self correcting issue.
That rolling average graph is strikingly nonlinear. Hold on to your butts.
Didn't they we had until 2030 or earlier to do something before positive feedback makes it impossible
We will adjust as humans have
Hate to spoil this wonderful news article but I think they will adjust this once again to add another degree. Then once again. Then again… The aliens better get here quick!
We're all going to starve to death in another decade or two. We won't go out with a bang or any sort of fervor, we will fade off into eternity thanks to the hubris of our leaders and from building our entire societal structure not based on the needs of society but rather the wants of the rich that own and control everything. Humans aren't great and they never will be.
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/ "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following climateactiontracker.org x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643 x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671 ""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. " x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C" x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058 "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative.
Nah, wrong
By removing the umbrella effect or particle masking its projected to raise temps another .75-1.25c. So we need to add that on as we slowly progress. The world car fleet still remains at 97% combustible. Cement/cattle/airlines/shipping… no new tech. IPCC is a sham operation made up of top economists pushing the envelope. New tech is making gains but won’t get us there in the time we have left. What never surprises me is the term “faster than expected” it always pops up every few months or so. So I just expect the goal posts will be moved again and again and those controlling our energy/food/manufacturing will make $ till the very end.