
Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists - xdze2
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html
======
rayiner
It’s important to note that this does not reflect the consensus scientific
view:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-
everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/)

> First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens
> the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.

> I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the
> claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me
> because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed.
> And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”

> All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a
> modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy
> will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning
> Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C
> would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same
> period.

Additionally, what is a “planetary state of emergency?” Like global martial
law? Because if the tipping point theory is correct, that’s what we have to be
talking about, right. It can’t just be a metaphor for “try harder to meet
climate change protocols.”

~~~
mempko
Im sorry but, when have economists been right about anything? Economics is not
a science, they just use math and big words because real scientists seem to.

~~~
threatofrain
Economics is a difficult phenomena but any nation or academic body which
ignores it study would be severely foolish. There’s no point in bashing its
scienciness.

~~~
dredmorbius
Economics, as a discipline and organised body of knowledge, is going through a
rather severe crisis of confidence. And does, periodically.

[https://www.ineteconomics.org/events/the-economic-crisis-
and...](https://www.ineteconomics.org/events/the-economic-crisis-and-the-
crisis-in-economics)

------
Merrill
The article in Nature published as a "Comment" is "Climate tipping points —
too risky to bet against" \-
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0)

For the ice sheet collapses, it takes 100s or 1000s of years for the effects
to be realized. Others such as permafrost melting or Amazon forest
disappearance are faster, but time scales are not given. For example -

>The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate3. It could add a
further 7 m to sea level over thousands of years if it passes a particular
threshold. Beyond that, as the elevation of the ice sheet lowers, it melts
further, exposing the surface to ever-warmer air. Models suggest that the
Greenland ice sheet could be doomed at 1.5 °C of warming3, which could happen
as soon as 2030.

>Thus, we might already have committed future generations to living with sea-
level rises of around 10 m over thousands of years3. But that timescale is
still under our control. The rate of melting depends on the magnitude of
warming above the tipping point. At 1.5 °C, it could take 10,000 years to
unfold3; above 2 °C it could take less than 1,000 years6. Researchers need
more observational data to establish whether ice sheets are reaching a tipping
point, and require better models constrained by past and present data to
resolve how soon and how fast the ice sheets could collapse.

------
jezenesklof
"Scientifically, this provides strong evidence for declaring a state of
planetary emergency, to unleash world action that accelerates the path towards
a world that can continue evolving on a stable planet."

Talk about weasel words

"Exiting the fossil fuel economy is unlikely before 2050, but with temperature
already at 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperature, it is likely Earth will
cross the 1.5°C guardrail by 2040. The authors conclude this alone defines an
emergency"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us “The world is going to end in 12 years if we
don't address climate change” likewise Greta Thunberg warned us that according
to the UN’s IPCC, (the same one THE Scientists/authors use as a reference on
this paper)“we have less than 12 years left in which to correct our mistakes.”
and now THE Scientists/authors talk for LIKELY cross the 1.5°C by 2040?

~~~
Sharlin
The warming is going to continue for decades even after net emissions have
dropped to zero. So yes, we're in a real hurry even if the worst effects are
still a few decades away. It's not like we can wait UNTIL the 1.5° point is
crossed and then magically stop the warming.

------
travisoneill1
It seems like they are always saying we are on the brink of some "tipping
point." Is there an example of any we have already passed?

~~~
ElonMuskrat
Pretty hard to take climate change reporting seriously.

The media is an amplifier that only publishes the most alarmist scientific
findings, always blanketed in paragraphs of the editors own apocalyptic
interpretation.

Climate science is complex. There's a broad spectrum of findings, many are not
world-ending, and sometimes disagree on the details.

~~~
wayoutthere
If anything, the media understates the threat by mixing in a lot of debunked
misinformation. It's hard to take most journalism seriously with the
sensationalism bias, but we're _already_ seeing serious negative effects from
climate change in the most vulnerable countries.

The planet will be a very different place in 50 years.

------
ablation
A thoroughly disheartening read, as from what we've seen so far, we seem
incapable of taking any action, let alone "emergency action" to mitigate this.

~~~
m_fayer
The only slightly less alarming source:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0)

------
melonkidney
One thing I find encouraging is how many people (particularly young people)
are now understanding the seriousness of the climate situation. I would really
like to see a public pledge from companies, universities, etc that people who
risk their education/career by pushing for real change will not be
disadvantaged.

If anyone is interested in helping to make this a reality, shoot me an email
at together@highestsupport.com

~~~
vixen99
Getting it into perspective, emissions of CO2 in the UK are now at a level
last seen in 1890 and that contribution to world CO2 is around 1% with US at
16% with a bit more than half that from Europe.

[https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-carbon-emissions-
in-...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-carbon-emissions-in-2017-fell-
to-levels-last-seen-in-1890) [https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-
share-co2-](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-)

Meanwhile it's widely understood that all major fossil fuel-producing
nations—including the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India,
Canada, and Australia—have ambitious plans to increase production.

It's understanding on the part of the odd 70% that counts and good luck with
that. Lectures from the West don't go down very well especially since most of
these countries are committed to increasing their standard of living and
that's necessarily linked to energy use.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
This is how seriously Australian politicians take climate change:

[https://reneweconomy.com.au/barnaby-joyce-auctions-lump-
of-c...](https://reneweconomy.com.au/barnaby-joyce-auctions-lump-of-coal-in-a-
glass-jar-at-nationals-dinner-19807/)

------
perfunctory
The scariest thing about climate change is not climate deniers. The scariest
thing is people who believe in climate emergency and sit on their butt and do
nothing.

~~~
spodek
I challenged myself to avoid flying for a year, anticipating a year of missing
out, losing money, missing family, and all sorts of deprivation and sacrifice.
Within a few months I found it one of my best decisions so kept going. I'm now
over 4.5 years and may never fly again.

But when I talk to people about not flying, or avoiding packaged food, they
tell me it's impossible.

It's not only possible, it will improve your life as much as dropping sugar or
any other addiction. Nobody gets it. They think I'm suffering or privileged
when it's the opposite. I explain more in my second TEDx talk
[http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-
ge...](http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-gets-wrong-
about-the-environment-and-how-to-get-it-right-went-live).

Come to think of it, maybe I should stop posting about the joys of not flying
since it almost always leads to people responding with thoughtless
misunderstandings like: one person's actions don't matter or they need to for
work and family. We have to get past these knee-jerk misunderstandings.

------
martincollignon
If you want to do something as a techie, I would suggest helping out projects
like the ones found here: [https://github.com/topics/climate-
change](https://github.com/topics/climate-change) I would also suggest joining
communities like [https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

~~~
perfunctory
It took me a very long time (years) to come to terms with the idea that as a
techie I can't do anything to help climate. Tech projects is just an excuse to
stay in my comfort zone. A very uncomfortable realization.

~~~
spodek
Do you not think about living by your values as a matter of integrity?

I don't not steal to stop others from stealing. I don't steal because I don't
want to hurt others. If everyone in the world stole, I still wouldn't. If the
whole world pollutes, I'm still going to avoid polluting as much as I can.

~~~
perfunctory
> Do you not think about living by your values as a matter of integrity?

I am not sure I understand the context of the question. Does my comment
somehow imply I don't?

------
RickJWagner
" around 10 metres of irreversible sea-level rise. Reducing emissions could
slow this process, allowing more time for low-lying populations to move."

This seems like hyperbole to me. I'll be glad to buy Hawaiin real estate (at
an appropriate discount, of course) to show my sincerity.

Any sellers?

Seriously, articles of this kind are so over the top that they cause mental
fatigue for the issue and de-emphasize climate change.

~~~
chatmasta
President Obama seems to agree with you, as he recently bought a mansion on
the beach in Martha’s Vineyard.

It’s hard to take climate alarmism seriously when its proponents are taking
actions like that.

~~~
arrrg
Barack Obama is a boring, middle of the road, centrist as hell politician.

He is as much a “proponent” of climate change as, say, Angela Merkel. Which is
to say, not all that much. He cares a little bit but not that much.

Also, he’s rich and for rich people the risk of sea level rise is dramatically
lower because they can fight for their little corner either through
technological means or they can just move away and it’s not an existential
threat to them, no matter what they do.

------
LessDmesg
Human civilizations have always blossomed in warmer climate. All this
scaremongering about global warming ending human civilization and destroying
nature is just laughable.

~~~
wayoutthere
The sociological impact will be immense and likely bankrupt most of the world.
We're going to have to move people out of low-lying areas in a pretty short
amount of time. There will be _billions_ of refugees but the inland areas
don't have the infrastructure or water sources to absorb that many people.
There will be food shortages as farmable land becomes inundated or dries up.
Wars will happen as desperate people / nations fight over limited resources.

 _Every_ coastal city is under threat, and east Asia (where half the world's
population lives) is especially vulnerable. I have a feeling things are going
to get really, really bad in about 20 years because there's no realistic plan
to do anything about it.

~~~
LessDmesg
Sounds like fearmongering with no basis. There are lots of areas which would
benefit from warming and become food producers (Siberia and Canada come to
mind). As for Southeast Asians: they're already used to living on water, with
stilt houses, rice terraces etc. Humans can cope, as tgey always have.
Overall, there will be more water, more warmth and more civilization.

~~~
wayoutthere
Sure, individual humans will cope with change the best they can, but in the
absence of coordinated effort they’re just refugees.

Refugees aren’t bad people, but they are desperate. They will not abide by
your country’s rule of law if it means they starve as a result.

The global political environment is actively hostile to coordinated climate
action. Without that, we’re just going to see a series of uncontrolled crises
spilling over into neighboring nations as countries fight over limited and
shifting resource patterns.

