10mo ago

77% of Top Climate Scientists Think 2.5°C of Warming Is Coming—And They're Horrified

www.commondreams.org 77% of Top Climate Scientists Think 2.5°C of Warming Is Coming—And They're Horrified | Common Dreams

"I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the Global South," one expert said.

World News Non-US @lemy.lol

TVgog56789 @lemy.lol

10mo ago

77% of Top Climate Scientists Think 2.5°C of Warming Is Coming—And They're Horrified

www.commondreams.org /news/climate-scientists-2-5-world

41 2

You're viewing a single thread.

211 comments

I have a postmortem science degree, but hobby in studying paleontology/pre-history. It took a rise of only 10°C and excess pollution to wipe out over 83% of all life on the planet between the Permian and Triassic eras. Entire chains of life just wiped out. Carbon dating, sediment layer study, fossil records, they all show how screwed me are if we keep this up. The earth will survive, it always does, but it took 30 million years before life recovered.
Humans need to learn from the past, see the consequences of what most would think is a small change, but the ones in power don't seem to give a shit.
- If you don't mind me asking what does postmortem mean in this context? I have this funny image in my head of a skeleton studying for a degree lmao
  
  Mortuary science, pathology, autopsies, etc. I was going for a masters in Anatomic Pathology before I became disabled. I just research all things dead. I was always the weird little girl that liked studying mummies and fossils, so it seemed the logical step when I was choosing a career
  
  Thank you for the explanation!
- Worse. Normal people don't give a shit. Even the ones that are on the team that buys into it don't want to give up much to fix it.
  
  That's part of the issue, but the even bigger problem is that people fallaciously think they have to give up much to fix it when the reality is a combination of (a) they don't, and (b) the changes that they do have to make actually represent an improvement in lifestyle, not a deprivation.
  For example, Americans who've been brainwashed for decades by GM propaganda about the "open road" and car-dependent suburban "American dream" and whatnot have to be dragged kicking and screaming into higher zoning density and walkabilty, but once people have it they realize they're happier, healthier, have more free time, etc.
  
  Well, no. Burning fossil fuels was indeed cheaper than any other energy source, until recently, and for some things still is by far the cheapest. So yeah, we have to sacrifice something today to not cook the Earth. Apparently that's too abstract for us, though, and we will knowingly steer towards a cliff a few decades away.
  As an example, in Canada we have a modest carbon tax, and one that comes right back to people as refunds. It's still become a political lightning rod and the entire campaign target of the opposition, who is decisively leading in the polls right now. Another one, gen Z says they care, but it's not grandma buying Shein.
  
  Investing in better technology is categorically disqualified from counting as a "sacrifice!"
- Could you help me understand how we differentiate the latest warming temperatures being related to climate change and not just another period like the one you mentioned?
  To be clear, I fully believe that climate change is real, but sometimes when discussing it with people they will be of the camp that things are cyclical and just natural. I want to better arm myself for these arguments.
  
  Mass extinction events have a cause. The Permian/Triassic one I mentioned, is generally agreed to be from unusual movement of earth's crust, creating severe volcanic activity. The eruptions caused CO2 and pollution, meaning greenhouse gasses built up. The heat shifted water currents and the temperatures, mixed with acid rain, decimated life in the oceans.
  Humans are basically the volcanoes in modern times. Yes, the earth goes through normal changes, but these temperatures are increasing at a speed that, to my knowledge, has never happened. There is a way of teaching kids about how long the earth's had life, that visualizes it pretty well. If all of earth's history were to fit on your arm, shoulder to fingertips, if you gently scratched your fingernail on something rough, you'd erase all of humankind. We have barely existed on earth, but are throwing it off balance like never before. (With the exception of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, but that's a whole other tangent)
  Having taken years of pathology/physiology classes, it really feels like the earth is a body, and it's getting a fever to try and deal with an illness... us.
  Lmk if you need any sources. I can't exactly copy my books or the ones from my old college's libraries, but there's plenty of studies/resources out there if you're nerdy enough to dig 😊 (fossil pun)!
  
  Mass extinction events have a cause. The Permian/Triassic one I mentioned, is generally agreed to be from unusual movement of earth’s crust, creating severe volcanic activity.
  I think you'd get your point across even better with less understatement.
  Let's put it this way: by "severe volcanic activity," what you really mean is that an area roughly the size of Europe was buried half a kilometer deep in lava!
  We have barely existed on earth, but are throwing it off balance like never before. (With the exception of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, but that’s a whole other tangent)
  I think we may very well be on par with the meteor, TBH. Especially in the worst-case emission scenario.
  (Speaking of the K-Pg meteor, another large igneous province, similar to but smaller than the one at the P-T boundary, was basically the "exit wound" of that meteor impact. It could very well be that the P-T extinction was caused the same way, but all evidence of the crator would have been obliterated by subduction over the past 250 MY because the antipode of Siberia back then would've been somewhere in the middle of the Panthalassic Ocean. Edit: I take that back; turns out there is some evidence for it that managed to survive, so that's neat.)
  
  Thank you for adding more information. I love reading more about this stuff. It would make sense if a meteor was related to the P-T volcanic activity. It would easily have enough force to mess with the crust of the earth.
  
  I have a fun snarky way to handle “cyclical” people. If they say it’s cyclical I’ll say “so there will be dinosaurs.” And if they ask what I mean, I say “it’s a cycle, so there will be dinosaurs again.” If they say no, I ask if the continents will come together again. It’s an argument towards absurdity to point out that the world is always changing, as is the climate, so there is not a “cycle.”
- but the ones in power don't seem to give a shit.
  Conservatives also don't give a shit.
  
  The majority of people on both sides of the spectrum don't give a shit. People need to stop acting like this is just politicians, or CEOs, when it is the vast majority of the voters & potential voters. You'd see a lot more votes towards green parties & candidates if it were different. But the truth is, most people don't want to lose their comfortable lifestyle. Real climate action would affect us all, in our lives, in the prices we have to pay for products, in the products available to us, how we move around, etc etc.
  
  But the truth is, most people don’t want to lose their comfortable lifestyle.
  The real truth is, the notion that a lower-carbon lifestyle is somehow inferior to our current car-dependent bullshit is 100000% fallacious bullshit brainwashed into us by the automobile industry. Walkability is just better in every way (environmentally, economically, sociologically) and people whose lifestyle doesn't depend on cars are, statistically, happier and healthier than people who do.
  
  Now try to explain that people have to give up their job that's in the neighboring city, or having to get up 1-2 hours earlier due to bad train or bus connections, or that they now cannot get groceries anymore because they live in suburbia and have to drive an hour out to some massive parking lot desert to shop in their IKEA sized grocery halls. And that's just relating to the personal transport sector.
  
  Why do you persist in assuming that all those shitty circumstances would continue to exist when they are exactly the things I'm saying we should be fixing? The whole idea is to have lots of nearby employers, good train and bus connections, grocery stores within walking distance (and with little to no parking), etc.
  The #1 priority for reducing climate change (and fixing almost all our problems, from housing affordability to obesity) is zoning reform.
  
  Because no one is willing to change those things. No politician who would be willing to go this far would be voted in because of the intermediate issues this would cause for people. And doing a super slow transition would be too late at this point, especially since we're way past schedule already in regards to our emission models. It even starts with the simple fact that people are simply not willing to get rid of their cars, even if public transport was good and completely free. So you'd be left with enforcing people not to drive, which is obviously also not going to happen for the same reasons.
  The #1 priority for reducing climate change (and fixing almost all our problems, from housing affordability to obesity) is zoning reform.
  Only in countries like the US, who have a disproportional large portion of transport emissions. But a lot of our emissions in the West simply come from the production of our goods that we buy and give us our comfy lives.
  
  It even starts with the simple fact that people are simply not willing to get rid of their cars, even if public transport was good and completely free. So you’d be left with enforcing people not to drive, which is obviously also not going to happen for the same reasons.
  Induced demand can work in reverse. Stop expanding roads. Redesignate some lanes to public transport only. Why take the car and sit in a queue for 2 hours when a bus can get you to work in 30 minutes without any queues?
  
  That's a decades long process. We need proper action done within this decade.
  Why take the car and sit in a queue for 2 hours when a bus can get you to work in 30 minutes without any queues?
  You'd be surprised how many people would take that over a ride with other people.
  
  That’s a decades long process. We need proper action done within this decade.
  We don't know that. If it turns out that the actual ECS value is higher than predicted we're already fucked because whatever faction we might take today should've already been taken decades ago. If a global humanitarian crisis is mere decades away, no changes we'll feasibly make today or in the near future will stave it off.
  You’d be surprised how many people would take that over a ride with other people.
  An alternative is also that those who can, do their job remotely. Covid proved the feasibility of that. You couldn't pay me enough to start commuting or doing my own grocery runs again. I only go outside for enjoyment and none of it involves vehicles. Unless said vehicle is a bicycle, because my dog really enjoys cycling.
  
  We don't know that.
  We do, because the opposite effect took that long. It's likely even worse for the reasons mentioned.
  we're already fucked because whatever faction we might take today should've already been taken decades ago.
  That's true either way with where we're at. That's why we call for drastic actions to be taken, especially since governments can't even agree to implement what's asked for by scientific advisors, who are already very conservative in their predictions in order to not push those politicians too extremely.
  If a global humanitarian crisis is mere decades away, no changes we'll feasibly make today or in the near future will stave it off.
  That's not correct, because it can always get even worse. The more and sooner we get rid of our emissions, the better are our chances. That's also why, on a fixed time scale, it is important to do the bulk of the work as early as possible, instead of doing it towards the end. The longer those greenhouse gasses are in the air, the more damage it will cause for us in the long run. But right now literally all of our measurements taken are still causing us to shoot far beyond our set targets (which turns out, were already too conservatively set too).
  
  I think they give a shit.
  Enjoyment counts as giving a shit.

211 comments