It’s The End Of The World As We Know It

[Eric]

I know most of you won’t agree, but I will say it anyway.

Tell me about those 40 years of warnings. Without listing them all because I don’t have time, but there have been some predictions (polar ice caps melted by 2014, coastal areas being underwater, crops being unable to grow) that didn’t even come close to being true.

So people simply tuned it out and stopped listening. But Al Gore got very wealthy.

As for the current heatwave, it is not as bad as it was in the 30’s. The 70’s were a rather cool period of time, so when you look at temps then and now, we look like we are rising. But look from the 30’s and they are both peaks like it is part of a cycle. I know that this is an inconvenient truth.

Turns around and looks at the last 30 days (and several years) on the planet earth and asks... who cares about any political opinion, the worst is done. Man made climate change is real, it's here, and it's based in sound science.

This sort of ignorance caused it, it will also continue to be our downfall. Our kids will thank us as they will not be ale to get relief from 150 degree temperatures when they're adults.

 

[Yoused]

Tell me about those 40 years of warnings. Without listing them all because I don’t have time, but there have been some predictions (polar ice caps melted by 2014, coastal areas being underwater, crops being unable to grow) that didn’t even come close to being true.

So people simply tuned it out and stopped listening. But Al Gore got very wealthy.

Nitpick: Al Gore was already wealthy.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the models overstated the curve deltas. They did that because the '80s was when we really needed to seriously get on it, while the metaphorical canteen was still a third full – instead, that [long string of insulting epithets and aspersions omitted] Reagan told us to use more oil, because, we could.

Maybe next year will not be quite as hot and dry. Cycles, again. But the trendline is positive, and if we do not try to turn it around, our grandchildren are, pardon me, royally fucked.

As for the current heatwave, it is not as bad as it was in the 30’s. The 70’s were a rather cool period of time, so when you look at temps then and now, we look like we are rising. But look from the 30’s and they are both peaks like it is part of a cycle.

What about the bugs? This is a genuinely serious concern. We need them, and we are murdering them. It is peripherally AGW-related, but some of the things we need to do to help the climate will help them bounce back as well.

 

[Eric]

Nitpick: Al Gore was already wealthy.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the models overstated the curve deltas. They did that because the '80s was when we really needed to seriously get on it, while the metaphorical canteen was still a third full – instead, that [long string of insulting epithets and aspersions omitted] Reagan told us to use more oil, because, we could.

Maybe next year will not be quite as hot and dry. Cycles, again. But the trendline is positive, and if we do not try to turn it around, our grandchildren are, pardon me, royally fucked.



What about the bugs? This is a genuinely serious concern. We need them, and we are murdering them. It is peripherally AGW-related, but some of the things we need to do to help the climate will help them bounce back as well.

He's their strawman, they couldn't give a shit about the planet and just want to point fingers instead of doing their part to cut back or enforce regulations to make the largest polluters on the planet do the same. You've never seen a more ignorant group of people protecting those who fuck us all the hardest.

 

[Roller]

I know most of you won’t agree, but I will say it anyway.

Tell me about those 40 years of warnings. Without listing them all because I don’t have time, but there have been some predictions (polar ice caps melted by 2014, coastal areas being underwater, crops being unable to grow) that didn’t even come close to being true.

So people simply tuned it out and stopped listening. But Al Gore got very wealthy.

As for the current heatwave, it is not as bad as it was in the 30’s. The 70’s were a rather cool period of time, so when you look at temps then and now, we look like we are rising. But look from the 30’s and they are both peaks like it is part of a cycle. I know that this is an inconvenient truth.

I sometimes can't tell if you believe the stuff you write here, or mostly do it to rile us up. In this case, unfortunately, I suspect you really think what the world is experiencing is just part of a decades-long cycle. If that's so, your opinion is counter to what the majority of climate scientists are saying. If anything, their degree of alarm is higher than ever.

And I'm not only talking about the extreme temps people around the world are experiencing this summer — it's trends over decades, as well as research about other consequences of a warming world. A week ago, for example, CNN covered a paper in Science that said much of the Greenland ice sheet melted during a prior period similar to what we're approaching. If that were to happen, DeSantis (and many others) would have much more than "wokeism" to worry about.

It's remarkable to me that anyone with children can be so cavalier about something that may, and probably will, make their kid's lives intolerable, even in first-world countries. And it's especially sad given that humanity may still be able to avert disaster for them. But hey, as long as your guys get into office and enact tax laws more favorable to you, it's all good, right?

Now that's an inconvenient truth.

(BTW, I agree with @Yoused about insect populations, though they're hardly the only concern.)

 

[Citysnaps]

It's remarkable to me that anyone with children can be so cavalier about something that may, and probably will, make their kid's lives intolerable, even in first-world countries. And it's especially sad given that humanity may still be able to avert disaster for them. But hey, as long as your guys get into office and enact tax laws more favorable to you, it's all good, right?

It's being incredibly selfish and uncaring.

 

[Citysnaps]

What really drove the point home for me was taking an extended education political science class at the local university 10 years ago. A high ranking US Navy officer in charge of long range strategic planning for the Navy came to speak about climate change. He said the Navy was already witnessing the effects and having to compensate. And that the country/world not taking climate change seriously will dramatically decrease force effectiveness in the coming years. He was very concerned about that.

 

[Huntn]

I look at it more this way: There are many levels of survival for the human species that would let us survive the Holocene extinction event. Some are better than others. At the end of the day, a group that manages to leverage industrial age tech and simple electronics would slide back far less than groups that don’t. In an era of scarcity and a crater blasted into our racial memory to echo into the eons, I don’t expect much sharing to go on for a while as everyone’s still got a clear image of the horrors that led them there and how it was ”other people” that burned the world. So those groups who get the folks needed to at least bootstrap small power grids and small-scale industrialization will have the best shot at making it through. Modern materials are probably going to be the trickiest part. Stuff used for wind turbines, solar panels and battery storage are going to be scarce for a while.

I suppose I’m less pessimistic than some, but I fully expect humans at some level will survive and enter into a new Dark Ages. How long it takes us to crawl out of that will depend a lot on just how badly we burn it all to the ground on our way down. But unless we somehow get unlucky on the front of absolutely nobody left being able to restart a subsistence society from the agrarian age in the regions that are going to still be habitable, human extinction seems a rather remote (but not impossible) outcome.



This is the thing that really gets me. The untold suffering and death that will be unleashed over the course of decades. Preventable suffering.

I may have sounded like I think we will become extinct, but I agree with you, that some humans could survive, it would depend on how bad it gets. But I feel pretty confident that if we are knocked back, human beings would remain fundamentally unchanged, selfish and greedy, continuing to make the same mistakes, but I could be wrong. There were small tribes that believed in living in harmony with Gaia, but expand the population, give them technology, and all bets are off.

 

[Huntn]

I know most of you won’t agree, but I will say it anyway.

Tell me about those 40 years of warnings. Without listing them all because I don’t have time, but there have been some predictions (polar ice caps melted by 2014, coastal areas being underwater, crops being unable to grow) that didn’t even come close to being true.

So people simply tuned it out and stopped listening. But Al Gore got very wealthy.

As for the current heatwave, it is not as bad as it was in the 30’s. The 70’s were a rather cool period of time, so when you look at temps then and now, we look like we are rising. But look from the 30’s and they are both peaks like it is part of a cycle. I know that this is an inconvenient truth.

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/The-Origins-of-Climate-Science-and-The-History-of-Global-Warming

The greenhouse effect has been known about since the 1800s. Human activity has accelerated the trend. There have been periods where the atmosphere cooled off due to events such as large eruptions that spewed large amounts of particles into the atmosphere causing cooling events, but the overall heat trend is up. During the early colonization of North America by Europeans a super volcano went off and caused the Northern USA to be uncharacteristically cold.

It’s interesting that you choose to critique Al Gore as a charlatan, and cite, oh the polar ice cap did not melt in 2014 as he said it would, but he got rich… You do pay attention to the news yes? So he was off by ten years, but yours is the typical naysayer response. You most likely think he is just another evil liberal trying to fool us Into spending our money on unworthy environmental projects. Yep, this will be our fate to some degree, heads buried in the sand until we are consumed, and maybe not all of us, but a lot of us..

I have a brother whose position is that this warming trend is just a natural occurrenc, with the implication that we’ve had nothing to do with it. Fine, you and he will roast along with the rest of us, but in ignorance. Well, he just moved to Alaska, so I doubt he’ll roast, and if a huge displacement event happens, there will be ramifications, he and other Alaskans may have to defend their borders from a lot of refugees. I’m getting old and mentally preparing myself to depart this Earth and I won’t be surprised it it happens during some kind of climate related breakdown of civilization.

 

[Huntn]

I sometimes can't tell if you believe the stuff you write here, or mostly do it to rile us up. In this case, unfortunately, I suspect you really think what the world is experiencing is just part of a decades-long cycle. If that's so, your opinion is counter to what the majority of climate scientists are saying. If anything, their degree of alarm is higher than ever.

And I'm not only talking about the extreme temps people around the world are experiencing this summer — it's trends over decades, as well as research about other consequences of a warming world. A week ago, for example, CNN covered a paper in Science that said much of the Greenland ice sheet melted during a prior period similar to what we're approaching. If that were to happen, DeSantis (and many others) would have much more than "wokeism" to worry about.

It's remarkable to me that anyone with children can be so cavalier about something that may, and probably will, make their kid's lives intolerable, even in first-world countries. And it's especially sad given that humanity may still be able to avert disaster for them. But hey, as long as your guys get into office and enact tax laws more favorable to you, it's all good, right?

Now that's an inconvenient truth.

(BTW, I agree with @Yoused about insect populations, though they're hardly the only concern.)

Greenland melts = 20’ rise in sea levels. Yea, a slight disruption that will make West Virginia look very different from a population standpoint. But you know, this is just liberal scare tactics. They're trying to make us do things and spend money that we don’t want to spend on some stupid climate initiative.

 

[Huntn]

Nitpick: Al Gore was already wealthy.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the models overstated the curve deltas. They did that because the '80s was when we really needed to seriously get on it, while the metaphorical canteen was still a third full – instead, that [long string of insulting epithets and aspersions omitted] Reagan told us to use more oil, because, we could.

Maybe next year will not be quite as hot and dry. Cycles, again. But the trendline is positive, and if we do not try to turn it around, our grandchildren are, pardon me, royally fucked.



What about the bugs? This is a genuinely serious concern. We need them, and we are murdering them. It is peripherally AGW-related, but some of the things we need to do to help the climate will help them bounce back as well.

We moved to Minnesota in 1986 and experienced a wonderfully cool summer that stayed in the 70s. Later I read that a volcano had erupted somewhere causing this temporary effect. The following summers were much warmer and continued to get warmer.

This year in Houston we’ve seen many less bumble bees than previous years. I guess they don’t like 100s.

 

[Alli]

Read Lucifer’s Hammer,

One of my all-time favorites, mostly because the nerd/science guy wins.

 

[Nycturne]

It’s interesting that you choose to critique Al Gore as a charlatan, and cite, oh the polar ice cap did not melt in 2014 as he said it would, but he got rich… You do pay attention to the news yes? So he was off by ten years, but yours is the typical naysayer response. You most likely think he is just another evil liberal trying to fool us Into spending our money on unworthy environmental projects. Yep, this will be our fate to some degree, heads buried in the sand until we are consumed, and maybe not all of us, but a lot of us..

Part of the problem is some of the reporting gets wonky, rephrasing things to the point of mis-information. Al Gore in particular has said a few different things here, some of which line up with predictions that have been around for years (ice free summers by mid-century), some which do not.

We will see ice free summers in the arctic. It’s just really a matter of when, not if.

There was a recent bit where a paper talked about the slowing of the AMOC based on the limited data we have. But by the time the Reuters/AP version showed up everywhere, it was talking about the gulf stream shutting down. Why? I don’t even know. But that’s not what the paper claimed at any point. The media here is being an hazard here by not accurately reporting the risks and dangers, both in terms of downplaying risks as well as mis-representing (or outright being wrong about) the short term dangers in a way that feeds denialism. And the fact that so many outlets are now repeaters for Reuters/AP these days means that the mis-information is already everywhere by the time one of those two utters it once, and it starts looking like “consensus” when it’s really just others rubber stamping one journalist’s work.

It’s not good when the folks the right would never listen to are the ones having to point out the problems (video link).

When it comes to ice shelves, I also worry about Antarctica. There’s a lot of ice there that can contribute to sea level rise if and when it breaks away. It’s been eroding for years, but there’s signs that larger break aways are in the cards.

 

[ArgoDuck]

^ Not sure of timing of the AP/Reuters report but this week came this open-access paper arguing for full or partial collapse of the AMOC between 2025 and 2095 (95% confidence interval). I’ve only skimmed it but the statistical reasoning seems good on first glance, a nice approach given a lack of specific data until recent decades. As one would hope, the authors point out their analysis cannot rule out other unknown mechanisms. Other climate scientists have greeted the paper with caution because of uncertainties in the variables.

Media reporting of science is perpetually frustrating but this situation is somewhat understandable. The scientific world view is one of uncertainty, something difficult for non-scientists to appreciate. It needs an unusually well-informed and knowledgeable reporter to distill this down to "this is what you should/should not worry about". And i think about this; when i was engaged in my phd it was already difficult for i and other candidates to understand the critical nuances of each other’s work - yet we were in the same general field!

Back to topic; as i understand it - not being a climate scientist! - substantial change to the AMOC would indeed have strong implications for climate via - yes - weakening of the Gulf stream

I agree…signs from antartica are worrying.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

Come on people, we can't worry about something like climate change while there are more pressing issues to address, like the Barbie movie, Bud Light, M&M's and, most urgently, Hunter Biden.

 

[Huntn]

Part of the problem is some of the reporting gets wonky, rephrasing things to the point of mis-information. Al Gore in particular has said a few different things here, some of which line up with predictions that have been around for years (ice free summers by mid-century), some which do not.

We will see ice free summers in the arctic. It’s just really a matter of when, not if.

There was a recent bit where a paper talked about the slowing of the AMOC based on the limited data we have. But by the time the Reuters/AP version showed up everywhere, it was talking about the gulf stream shutting down. Why? I don’t even know. But that’s not what the paper claimed at any point. The media here is being an hazard here by not accurately reporting the risks and dangers, both in terms of downplaying risks as well as mis-representing (or outright being wrong about) the short term dangers in a way that feeds denialism. And the fact that so many outlets are now repeaters for Reuters/AP these days means that the mis-information is already everywhere by the time one of those two utters it once, and it starts looking like “consensus” when it’s really just others rubber stamping one journalist’s work.

It’s not good when the folks the right would never listen to are the ones having to point out the problems (video link).

When it comes to ice shelves, I also worry about Antarctica. There’s a lot of ice there that can contribute to sea level rise if and when it breaks away. It’s been eroding for years, but there’s signs that larger break aways are in the cards.

^ Not sure of timing of the AP/Reuters report but this week came this open-access paper arguing for full or partial collapse of the AMOC between 2025 and 2095 (95% confidence interval). I’ve only skimmed it but the statistical reasoning seems good on first glance, a nice approach given a lack of specific data until recent decades. As one would hope, the authors point out their analysis cannot rule out other unknown mechanisms. Other climate scientists have greeted the paper with caution because of uncertainties in the variables.

Media reporting of science is perpetually frustrating but this situation is somewhat understandable. The scientific world view is one of uncertainty, something difficult for non-scientists to appreciate. It needs an unusually well-informed and knowledgeable reporter to distill this down to "this is what you should/should not worry about". And i think about this; when i was engaged in my phd it was already difficult for i and other candidates to understand the critical nuances of each other’s work - yet we were in the same general field!

Back to topic; as i understand it - not being a climate scientist! - substantial change to the AMOC would indeed have strong implications for climate via - yes - weakening of the Gulf stream

I agree…signs from antartica are worrying.

The bottom line here is we know this could be catastrophic yet we are not making this a top priority. That would be too uncomfortable and in the end we will absolutely get what we deserve,

 

[Nycturne]

^ Not sure of timing of the AP/Reuters report but this week came this open-access paper arguing for full or partial collapse of the AMOC between 2025 and 2095 (95% confidence interval). I’ve only skimmed it but the statistical reasoning seems good on first glance, a nice approach given a lack of specific data until recent decades. As one would hope, the authors point out their analysis cannot rule out other unknown mechanisms. Other climate scientists have greeted the paper with caution because of uncertainties in the variables.

Note the wide range on this though. 70 year range for either a full or partial collapse of the AMOC. The research is important as it shows that the AMOC weakening can have knock-on effects in this century when we thought the risk was low (10%). But at the same time, the way it was being run with is going to have the wrong impact on the larger set of readers of the news, especially when we talk about those who only skim headlines.

Media reporting of science is perpetually frustrating but this situation is somewhat understandable. The scientific world view is one of uncertainty, something difficult for non-scientists to appreciate. It needs an unusually well-informed and knowledgeable reporter to distill this down to "this is what you should/should not worry about". And i think about this; when i was engaged in my phd it was already difficult for i and other candidates to understand the critical nuances of each other’s work - yet we were in the same general field!

A chunk of it is the desire to drive eyeballs, which can run counter to providing the information folks should know.

Agreed on the last bit. I run across this all the time just trying to converse about design and architecture approaches between teams/orgs at a large software company. Everyone built their own jargon and it muddles everything.

Back to topic; as i understand it - not being a climate scientist! - substantial change to the AMOC would indeed have strong implications for climate via - yes - weakening of the Gulf stream

Oh, there's implications, but we can do better at conveying those implications than we are. We aren't even on opposite sides of this fight here. But I am tired of people like Herdfan being able to point to bad journalism as to why the changes that we are observing should be dismissed. That said, maybe it won't change things much to fix that, but I consider this an all-hands-on-deck effort. And to do that, one aspect is that we need an informed population that understands at least the broad strokes correctly rather than the most sensationalized takes on it.

I mean, as a society we managed to turn things around with the damage we were doing to the ozone. I know it's possible for us to address this, and that people are trying to do so. As an older millenial who has family alive who will get to live with the consequences of what we do today, I'd much rather go down trying to fix this than not.

 

[rdrr]

I know most of you won’t agree, but I will say it anyway.

Tell me about those 40 years of warnings. Without listing them all because I don’t have time, but there have been some predictions (polar ice caps melted by 2014, coastal areas being underwater, crops being unable to grow) that didn’t even come close to being true.

So people simply tuned it out and stopped listening. But Al Gore got very wealthy.

As for the current heatwave, it is not as bad as it was in the 30’s. The 70’s were a rather cool period of time, so when you look at temps then and now, we look like we are rising. But look from the 30’s and they are both peaks like it is part of a cycle. I know that this is an inconvenient truth.

You are saying look at the 1930's? Really that is your argument? The 1930s where man's influence on soil resulted in a major climate crisis.

 

[Huntn]

We originally moved to Houston, so my wife could be closer to her aging parents. It’s the biggest metropolitan area, 6m, I’ve ever lived in. After 30 years n Minnesota living in the suburbs of a lovely 1.5m metro area, with splendid summers and cold winters, although they were not that cold the last 10 years we lived there. We both miss it. It’s relatively inexpensive to live here, but I guess you get what you pay for.

We’ve got a nice little house and backyard with a pool, but this last summer was the worst, heat was miserable 100F (38C) days for 3 months. We are totally dependent on the electrical grid, to keep our house livable, while the state, Texas, asks everyone to conserve or we’ll be looking at rolling brown outs.

This is while my brother just pulled up stakes from the Virginia, DC suburbs and is headed for Alaska. I’m envious, although I’m not sure I’d choose to live there. The draw is big beautiful scenery and not a lot of people. During the course of my career I visited there several time, and I did not care for a winter of twilight, or a summer of daylight.

The interesting thing, is that in the age of global warming, if I had carte blance to move where I want to, I’m not sure where I’d go. I used to say Tennessee, Knoxville, near the Appalachian mountains, but that’s also getting hot summer.

Moving to Texas was my compromise to make my wife happy, but she’s not that happy living here. It’s been a red State and we lean blue (liberal). And honestly I think this country could likely go to hell. While there are a lot of good people living here (everywhere) there are way too many bankrupt broken bad, fascist leaning MAGA/Trump types and Republicans who as a minority of right wing ass holes, are ready to chuck democracy and shit on our Constitution so they can continue to hold power. Voter rights? Haha, it’s fuck you so me and my little band of losers can call the shots, and finish us off properly.

if you want honesty and darkness, I think the human species is headed for a fall. We are just too locked into our economies to do what we must be doing to keep the planet from burning. I’ve mentioned it before but read up on The Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter. I don’t believe we are good enough or worthy enough to get though that filter.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-great-filter-a-possible-solution-to-the-fermi-paradox/

 

[fischersd]

I think before Trump all of us were hoping that all of the bigots would hide in the shadows just long enough so that their opinions (ignorance) would fade into a distant memory. Now that ignorance is celebrated on the right and we've all moved out of the middle (well, not all, but most).

I think because of that, that immature, selfish group can never be counted on to sacrifice and help save the planet (if it can be) - and by save it, I mean save it the way it has been in our living memory. As others have stated - evolution / nature will march on just fine after we've left. Maybe the ants will rule the world for a time before evolution changes things.

I also think we've been past the tipping point for some time - but they won't say that as our tendency would be to say "Well, we're all fucked anyways, may as well all drive Hummers and burn coal to keep the lights on."

And I think the intelligent species out there in the cosmos are steering far from us barbarians as we haven't shown when the hell we'll finally grow up.

If someone could sort out a new way of living that replaces capitalism, then we could afford the things that our world needs without costing significant sacrifices to peoples' standard of living. People don't want to live pay check to pay check. Putting enough carbon tax on everything, so gas costs $10/gallon isn't going to solve our problems.

 

[Nycturne]

if you want honesty and darkness, I think the human species is headed for a fall. We are just too locked into our economies to do what we must be doing to keep the planet from burning. I’ve mentioned it before but read up on The Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter. I don’t believe we are good enough or worthy enough to get though that filter.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-great-filter-a-possible-solution-to-the-fermi-paradox/

And I’ve countered this before, but perhaps phrasing it from another angle: I think we should be cognizant that human civilization and the human species are two distinct things.

Civilization will fall well before the species does. And with something like climate change, our footprint would drastically reduce in that scenario. Ironically, buckling under the weight of a crisis sooner would give us better odds as a species, but at the cost of much more suffering.

The main difference here compared to nuclear winter, a super volcano or a meteor strike, is that we are still part of the cycle. In a nuclear conflict, once the damage is done, it doesn’t matter what we do. But here, we still have a role to play. A collapse that reverts us to a more agrarian age is materially not that different from drastically reducing our carbon footprint via new tech.