Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Endus]

They write that the flooding will be decades after 2060s and 2070s.
Technically the year 3000 or 4000 is a lot of decades after the 2070s, but it certainly is at least misleading.

They mention "2060s or 2070s" as the date we might reach 3C in warming. Not when this level of flooding would occur.

You are continuing to make shit up that the article neither said nor even implied. This is a "you" problem.

Oh, you wanted some more references:
https://www.randymajors.org/elevatio...=show&loc=true 18-23m

Dropping the pin RIGHT next to the water shows an elevation of 23-30 feet in many locations. Which clearly isn't correct. Checking the notes at the bottom of the page demonstrates that outside the USA, the margin of error is +/- 16 meters, so again, not really helping establish your point. And, again, this is from mean sea level, not including tidal ranges nor storm surges or wave heights.

https://en-za.topographic-map.com/maps/7783/Durban/ 24m (there are some weird effects at some places at the coast)

This one shows parts of the ocean at several meters above sea level. Which, y'know, not how sea levels work. Also, the street in front of the City Hall only registers 18m, anyway, which is what's shown as flooded. Why are you looking at the center of the building which you can't see in the artist's depictions?

The article didn't include this elevation for their photo-renderings - and they only show a degree-slider for the maps; not elevation so you cannot see that what data they assumed for either elevation at places or elevation induced by warming; and as previously noted they don't remove old photos when they get better data.

Again, this is not a problem with the research, this is you failing to check sources and the like. Take some personal responsibility. That's why papers cite sources; so they don't have to include everything from those sources in their own paper. Literally how research is done in every single academic field.

You're pushing climate change denialism, based on your refusal to properly assess research, and basically nothing else.

[NED funded]

So the argument against doing anything amounts to kicking the can down the road.
As if that refrain hasn't been sung for years.

Doing something now won't be nearly as painful as doing something later.

I have become cynical when it comes to climate change. Everyone talks big game and at the exception of a few countries its all talk no action

I am glad to be the last generation that will get to enjoy the wonders of the world as they are b4 they are further destroyed by humans and feel bad about future generations

[Elegiac]

There is nothing depressive about, it is the modus operandi of humanity, the last years made it abundantly clear we as a species are incapable of handling any global crisis.

This viewpoint is just another form of climate change denialism.

The ozone layer and the eradication of smallpox say hi, by the way. Humanity is more than capable of handling global crises; capitalism is not.

[cubby]

This viewpoint is just another form of climate change denialism.

The ozone layer and the eradication of smallpox say hi, by the way. Humanity is more than capable of handling global crises; capitalism is not.

Fixing global warming almost guarantees the destruction of both air travel as it exists today (jets) and cargo shipping as well (need to move to essentially large sail boats, obviously more complicated). If/when those industries die, several others will as well, and that will collapse several other industries and markets, completely reshaping markets and economies.

I agree with you, but I don't see how we can get humanity to turn their backs on capitalism.

[Endus]

This viewpoint is just another form of climate change denialism.

The ozone layer and the eradication of smallpox say hi, by the way. Humanity is more than capable of handling global crises; capitalism is not.

It also generally stems from an assumption that there should be one simple fix, or it's not fixable.

We didn't get into this problem by making one simple mistake; it's ridiculous to think we can get ourselves out of it for less effort than we put into creating it. We need a multi-pronged effort by as many as possible in an ongoing sense. We need to figure out how to do every little thing that can contribute to some level of improvement, rather than bitching that there's no magic bullet single-issue "fix'.

- - - Updated - - -

Fixing global warming almost guarantees the destruction of both air travel as it exists today (jets) and cargo shipping as well (need to move to essentially large sail boats, obviously more complicated). If/when those industries die, several others will as well, and that will collapse several other industries and markets, completely reshaping markets and economies.

I agree with you, but I don't see how we can get humanity to turn their backs on capitalism.

On shipping, sail-powered shipping is actually a going research effort. The new wind-powered ships don't look anything like the old sailing ships of yore;



That's a design slated to enter service by 2024, and it would reduce emissions by 90% or better. It's still in testing, and it still needs "normal" engines for things like harbor maneuvering, which is why it's not a 100% reduction, but I believe they haven't incorporated the engine design into this yet, focusing on the wind-powered aspect as they should be able to slot in pretty much any normal engine design. But they could also develop a cleaner engine there, and further reduce emissions.

Air travel, honestly, we need to invest heavily in rail. Rail's much nicer. High-speed rail systems through North America would do a lot to mitigate the need/desire for air travel, and when it comes to transcontinental, that's where you get the interesting options for very high-speed transfers through tunnels. Over and above the reduction of emissions, it's just a more-comfortable way to travel, frankly. Current tech for high-speed trains are giving north of 400km/h speeds, which isn't that far behind air travel, and you don't have to deal with the pre-boarding and baggage collection nonsense you do with air travel, which typically eats up an additional hour or two, more for international.

[Elegiac]

I agree with you, but I don't see how we can get humanity to turn their backs on capitalism.

ITT: People forget the divine right of kings went the way of the dodo.

Again, this is a form of defeatism that is intentionally propagated precisely because it services the status quo.

According to Fisher, the quotation "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism,” attributed to both Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek, encompasses the essence of capitalist realism. Capitalist realism is loosely defined as the predominant conception that capitalism is the only viable economic system, and thus there can be no imaginable alternative. Fisher likens capitalist realism to a "pervasive atmosphere" that affects areas of cultural production, political-economic activity, and general thought.

[Endus]

ITT: People forget the divine right of kings went the way of the dodo.

Again, this is a form of defeatism that is intentionally propagated precisely because it services the status quo.

It's particularly silly, since some economic systems (market socialism, for instance) aren't that massively different in terms of structure. The biggest necessary change between modern mixed-economy capitalism and straight market socialism is just "no individual ownership structures". Sole proprietorships (mostly) go away, as do private shareholders. Instead, you get a variety of social ownership models taking their place; worker collectives, union-owned shops, co-operatives, etc. All models we know work, because they already exist in the mixed-economy status quo. Amazon could still exist, but rather than the profits going to Bezos and shareholders, they're shared by employees according to a set schedule (earning additional voting shares through promotions/seniority, say) and no ownership outside the staff whatsoever. Bezos could become CEO and thus an employee and regain some voting capacity, but nowhere close to enough to outvote his entire employee base (because, in any such vote, they're all gonna vote against that kind of power grab).

Socialism simply isn't that different, not for anyone but the capitalists.

And if you don't own a big-ass company, you're not a capitalist.

[Elegiac]

It's particularly silly, since some economic systems (market socialism, for instance) aren't that massively different in terms of structure. The biggest necessary change between modern mixed-economy capitalism and straight market socialism is just "no individual ownership structures". Sole proprietorships (mostly) go away, as do private shareholders. Instead, you get a variety of social ownership models taking their place; worker collectives, union-owned shops, co-operatives, etc. All models we know work, because they already exist in the mixed-economy status quo. Amazon could still exist, but rather than the profits going to Bezos and shareholders, they're shared by employees according to a set schedule (earning additional voting shares through promotions/seniority, say) and no ownership outside the staff whatsoever. Bezos could become CEO and thus an employee and regain some voting capacity, but nowhere close to enough to outvote his entire employee base (because, in any such vote, they're all gonna vote against that kind of power grab).

Socialism simply isn't that different, not for anyone but the capitalists.

And if you don't own a big-ass company, you're not a capitalist.

Not just that, it reeks of 'End of History' silliness.

Economic systems emerge as a result of the environments in which they exist and the technological capacity to support them, so it's foolish to assume that as both our environment and technologies change that our economy won't as well.

The difference is only in the level of societal dislocation and hardship required to make that happen. In the best case it's a relatively smooth transition, in the worst case it usually ends with a lot of people without their heads.

[cubby]

ITT: People forget the divine right of kings went the way of the dodo.

Again, this is a form of defeatism that is intentionally propagated precisely because it services the status quo.

I can't tell what you're getting at here. Are you saying that what I've said is a form of defeatism? It sounds like you're critiquing me, but I'm not sure.

- - - Updated - - -

It also generally stems from an assumption that there should be one simple fix, or it's not fixable.

We didn't get into this problem by making one simple mistake; it's ridiculous to think we can get ourselves out of it for less effort than we put into creating it. We need a multi-pronged effort by as many as possible in an ongoing sense. We need to figure out how to do every little thing that can contribute to some level of improvement, rather than bitching that there's no magic bullet single-issue "fix'.

- - - Updated - - -



On shipping, sail-powered shipping is actually a going research effort. The new wind-powered ships don't look anything like the old sailing ships of yore;



That's a design slated to enter service by 2024, and it would reduce emissions by 90% or better. It's still in testing, and it still needs "normal" engines for things like harbor maneuvering, which is why it's not a 100% reduction, but I believe they haven't incorporated the engine design into this yet, focusing on the wind-powered aspect as they should be able to slot in pretty much any normal engine design. But they could also develop a cleaner engine there, and further reduce emissions.

Air travel, honestly, we need to invest heavily in rail. Rail's much nicer. High-speed rail systems through North America would do a lot to mitigate the need/desire for air travel, and when it comes to transcontinental, that's where you get the interesting options for very high-speed transfers through tunnels. Over and above the reduction of emissions, it's just a more-comfortable way to travel, frankly. Current tech for high-speed trains are giving north of 400km/h speeds, which isn't that far behind air travel, and you don't have to deal with the pre-boarding and baggage collection nonsense you do with air travel, which typically eats up an additional hour or two, more for international.

Those ships are pretty great - I've seen them before in design pics. I can't wait for them to become the standard - is there any timeline for replacing current cargo ships with those?

Regarding air travel. Rails would be a nice replacement, but I think we need to go the other way with air travel. Make slower, better. Go back to the dirigible and other low carbon impact travels that take more time, and stop making fast travel the "norm". We can already work from almost anywhere on earth now, so the need to be somewhere instantly or quickly doesn't really matter.

However, an increase in rail infrastructure, combined with ecofriendly trains, would also be a big help.

[Elegiac]

I can't tell what you're getting at here. Are you saying that what I've said is a form of defeatism?

Yes. Saying that it's impossible to transition away from capitalism is, as Ursula Le Guin said, akin to saying it's impossible to transition away from a model of divine monarchy.

Not seeing too many divine monarchies these days.

[Forogil]

CNN writes: "In less-optimistic scenarios, where emissions continue to climb beyond 2050, the planet could reach 3 degrees as early as the 2060s or 2070s, and the oceans will continue to rise for decades beyond that before they reach peak levels."

They write that the flooding will be decades after 2060s and 2070s.

They mention "2060s or 2070s" as the date we might reach 3C in warming. Not when this level of flooding would occur.

Are you unable to read a complete sentence?

Decades after 2070s normally means around the year 2100 - not the year 2200 to 4000, which are the dates of the underlying article mention. This is a basic level of reading comprehension.

Also, the street in front of the City Hall only registers 18m, anyway, which is what's shown as flooded. Why are you looking at the center of the building which you can't see in the artist's depictions?

I looked at the parking lot in front of the center, since it was the center of the image.

Even 18 m elevation would give a sea-level rise at least THREE TIME BIGGER than the projected average of 6 m. That's why they no longer show flooding at that point on their own maps. They just kept the images - that no longer have any basis.

And as mentioned the street isn't level (in contrast to the picture); so even with a 6 m error the image still seems to show 23 m high areas covered in water. These are the incorrect pretty images people will later show to indicate how wrong scientists are.

And, again, this is a problem with the research, and you failing to check sources and the like.
Take some personal responsibility.

[Combatbutler]

This viewpoint is just another form of climate change denialism.

The ozone layer and the eradication of smallpox say hi, by the way. Humanity is more than capable of handling global crises; capitalism is not.

I am not denying climate, change nor do I deny it would theoretically possible to fix this mess, but I have absolutely zero faith in humanity in this regard. So to each their own.

[Endus]

CNN writes: "In less-optimistic scenarios, where emissions continue to climb beyond 2050, the planet could reach 3 degrees as early as the 2060s or 2070s, and the oceans will continue to rise for decades beyond that before they reach peak levels."

Are you unable to read a complete sentence?

Decades after 2070s normally means around the year 2100 - not the year 2200 to 4000, which are the dates of the underlying article mention. This is a basic level of reading comprehension.

It is a basic level of reading comprehension, but I'm not the one making mistakes.

The range is, as you mention, the years 2200-4000. From 2070, 2200 is just 130 years distant. The sentence you're citing has to cover the entire range listed, not just the further extremes, particularly as the range is down to uncertainty about the speed of future SLR rather than some confident statement that said SLR won't arrive for thousands of years, definitely.

As it has to cover the closer ranges, and those closer ranges are less than two centuries away, they can't reasonably say "continue to rise for centuries", because the data says it could occur in less than two. So no multiple on "centuries". The next step down from "centuries" is "decades". Entirely appropriate.

Even 18 m elevation would give a sea-level rise at least THREE TIME BIGGER than the projected average of 6 m. That's why they no longer show flooding at that point on their own maps.

1> The average they found was not 6m. I have no idea where you're even getting that figure. You appear to have just made it up. The only time the paper mentions 6 meters is in reference to the framework of a different project entirely as one of the few examples that considered longer-range SLR at all.
2> Global averages are not local averages.
3> Your sources aren't accurate enough about elevation for you to be taking this kind of stance in the first place.
4> You're still ignoring the difference between mean sea level and high-water flooding potential.
5> Even if the new data doesn't show flooding at 3C, it does by the time you get to 3.6C. So you're quibbling over pretty minor variances.
6> Even if the mocked-up image were developed with an earlier modeling effort, that doesn't give you grounds for claiming there's any level of dishonesty going on in its creation. That's you pushing an agenda. Images are always produced with the best data available at the time. Better data coming forth does not make those images retroactively dishonest.

[Forogil]

As it has to cover the closer ranges, and those closer ranges are less than two centuries away, they can't reasonably say "continue to rise for centuries", because the data says it could occur in less than two. So no multiple on "centuries". The next step down from "centuries" is "decades".

You are just twisting yourself as a contortionist to justify writing "decades" after 2060s to 2070s for the time-period 2200 to 4000, when there are lots of other alternatives that aren't misleading.

And similarly trying to justify a claim about flooding in Durban that the author's themselves no longer support.

Better data coming forth does not make those images retroactively dishonest.

Better data being available before the images were published make them dishonest.
You know that the images were published just a couple of days ago? I'm pretty sure the sources I used were available before that.

Basically it's another case of a scientist taking a fancy new algorithm, applying it to lots data, getting some result they like and then generating pretty pictures without double-checking the results against other available sources before publishing. Certainly sloppy, and update the data/algorithm but not removing the images is also dishonest. Then those pretty pictures are sent out to news organizations; and those are the things that people remember - despite never being supported by good science.

Same as many other preliminary scientific studies with big headlines.

[cubby]

Yes. Saying that it's impossible to transition away from capitalism is, as Ursula Le Guin said, akin to saying it's impossible to transition away from a model of divine monarchy.

Not seeing too many divine monarchies these days.

Ok, I can definitely see that point of view. Claiming that something is impossible to [change] is definitely defeatism. I think the position I was putting forth is sound, but I can definitely phrase it more appropriately/accurately. Thanks for that.

[Endus]

You are just twisting yourself as a contortionist to justify writing "decades" after 2060s to 2070s for the time-period 2200 to 4000, when there are lots of other alternatives that aren't misleading.

"Decades" isn't misleading, and when the frame covers time less than two centuries away, it's appropriate.

You're the one "twisting" here, to try and argue that normal English is "misleading" because you didn't read the paper with proper care and made unwarranted assumptions that turned out to be incorrect.

And similarly trying to justify a claim about flooding in Durban that the author's themselves no longer support.

This is trivially a lie. You're just lying about basic shit.

Better data being available before the images were published make them dishonest

.

That's not how science works, no. Darwin was not "dishonest" when he published Origin of Species. You're out to freakin' lunch.

You know that the images were published just a couple of days ago? I'm pretty sure the sources I used were available before that.

Basically it's another case of a scientist taking a fancy new algorithm, applying it to lots data, getting some result they like and then generating pretty pictures without double-checking the results against other available sources before publishing. Certainly sloppy, and update the data/algorithm but not removing the images is also dishonest. Then those pretty pictures are sent out to news organizations; and those are the things that people remember - despite never being supported by good science.

Same as many other preliminary scientific studies with big headlines.

Yeah, all this is a lie. You're lying, and pushing an anti-science agenda.

[Forogil]

"Decades" isn't misleading, and when the frame covers time less than two centuries away, it's appropriate.

When the time-frame is two centuries to two millennia from now it's misleading to use "decades after 2070"; despite your claims.

You're the one "twisting" here, to try and argue that normal English is "misleading" because you didn't read the paper with proper care and made unwarranted assumptions that turned out to be incorrect.

I'm stating that CNN's reporting is misleading.

By trying to switch to the paper - you just confirmed that you deep down you know that my statement is true, since if CNN's reporting were correct and not misleading there wouldn't have been any reason to check the paper for that (but only for additional information).

This is trivially a lie.

The author's visualize their results on a web-site that now show that Durban city hall isn't at risk.
You haven't even tried to counter that, but just added "trivially a lie".

That's not how science works, no. Darwin was not "dishonest" when he published Origin of Species.

WTF are you talking about????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

I'm talking about some group of scientist in the current year 2021, and possible future flooding of Durban, South Africa - not Darwin, Australia.

Those scientist assumedly have access to the web (which Charles Darwin didn't) and could have checked what others thought the elevation was for Durban City Hall (as I did) before making an image based on their algorithm and data, but instead they just blindly trusted their data and produced an image. Even if they later changed their data/algorithm the image is still there and not retracted.

Added:
I also went back to:

Buckingham palace is 6 meter above sea-level at the moment, and is about 1 meter below sea-level in that picture.

I also checked the update for this one: https://picturing.climatecentral.org/ Buckingham palace - showed with water around at 1.5 degrees and 2 m below sea-level in picture. Map NOW only shows some flooding before the palace gates for 3 degrees.

BTW: The underlying paper that CNN does not cite is called "Unprecedented threats to cities from multi-century sea level rise" and discusses long-term/multi-century sea level rise, and its Table 1 gives "Median multi-century global mean sea-level-rise" based on 3 degrees at 6.4 m.

[unfilteredJW]

The desperate need to be correct even when you’ve extensibly been shown how you were wrong isn’t a good character trait.

[Endus]

When the time-frame is two centuries to two millennia from now it's misleading to use "decades after 2070"; despite your claims.

The time frame is "two centuries from now", so the year 2221, on the low end.
If your new time frame starts from 2070, as the CNN article's does in the sentence you keep quibbling about, then 2221 is not two centuries away any more. It's only 150 years away. That's not "centuries", so your options are "decades away" or "more than a century away", and neither is more "right" than the other in that context.

Sorry that 2070 is actually 50 years later than "now", but that's how time works.

I'm stating that CNN's reporting is misleading.

By trying to switch to the paper - you just confirmed that you deep down you know that my statement is true, since if CNN's reporting were correct and not misleading there wouldn't have been any reason to check the paper for that (but only for additional information).

And you're lying; it is not misleading. And checking source material is standard protocol, and expected of readers. The CNN article would have to misrepresent that source somehow for it to be "misleading", and it does not.

The author's visualize their results on a web-site that now show that Durban city hall isn't at risk.
You haven't even tried to counter that, but just added "trivially a lie".

Because that website does show that the Durban city hall is at risk.

That's why it's "trivially a lie".

WTF are you talking about????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

I'm talking about some group of scientist in the current year 2021, and possible future flooding of Durban, South Africa - not Darwin, Australia.

I really don't know how you got from the author of The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, to the city of Darwin, Australia. Did you think the city was traveling around on the Beagle and visiting the Galapagos and so on? I specifically mentioned the famous text in there to ensure there wouldn't be any confusion, and here, you're not just confusing him for some other scientist named Darwin, you're pretending I was talking about the City of Darwin, Australia?

Yeah, this is why you keep getting things wrong. Because you don't read carefully and skip half of what's in front of you and make up stories to fill the gaps you skipped over.

Those scientist assumedly have access to the web (which Charles Darwin didn't) and could have checked what others thought the elevation was for Durban City Hall (as I did) before making an image based on their algorithm and data, but instead they just blindly trusted their data and produced an image. Even if they later changed their data/algorithm the image is still there and not retracted.

Their data still contradicts the narrative you're trying to construct here, so don't claim you're citing from it.

Also, you realize art pieces don't get automatically procedurally updated as the data the artist used changes, right? That's not how art works.

BTW: The underlying paper that CNN does not cite is called "Unprecedented threats to cities from multi-century sea level rise" and discusses long-term/multi-century sea level rise, and its Table 1 gives "Median multi-century global mean sea-level-rise" based on 3 degrees at 6.4 m.

And their 4 degree warming at 8.9m SLR.

Which, again, doesn't mean what you think, apparently, so I'm gonna repeat some earlier points;

1> 6.4m is not 6m. Seems obvious, but you're the one trying to pick nits, so you'd think you'd make an effort to be accurate.
2> That's only the mean global SLR for 3C warming, and they assessed up to 4C.
3> Mean global SLR is not local SLR. That's kind of what the word "mean" means. If it were, they could just say "global SLR".
4> Mean sea level, and thus mean sea level rise, is not a high-water mark of any kind whatsoever. It does not account for tides, storm surges, wave action, anything like that. Building on the coast just above MSL means your house will be flooded for at least twice the day just on tides alone, and if there's any wave or weather activity, more than that.
5> Your sources on elevation are inaccurate. Some of them said the sea level was above sea level.
6> The paper does say "multi-century", but that's starting 200 years from now, the year 2021. You'll find that if you look forward from the year 2070, their earliest time scales of 2221 are not multi-century distant any more. Which is why CNN rightly could not use "centuries" in the sentence you keep lying about. Sorry you forgot the 50-year gap between "now" and "the year 2070".

[Forogil]

The time frame is "two centuries from now", so the year 2221, on the low end

So, rephrase the sentence to make it clearer, as there wasn't a requirement to use 2070s as a baseline for when the flooding will occur.

The study, which wasn't cited, called it long-term or multi-century sea level rise. That's the non-misleading way to describe it - CNN's way of saying decades after 2070s is misleading. You are even making it seem as if they rephrased in that way to deliberately mislead; as you deep down know that it is misleading.

Because that website does show that the Durban city hall is at risk.

Not to that level and not at 3°C warning - and the image has a caption saying 3°C.

So, for your statement:

That's why it's "trivially a lie".

I really don't know how you got from the author of The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, to the city of Darwin, Australia.

I don't know how you got from future flooding to Darwin the author of The Origin of Species and The Voyages of the Beagle; and you didn't answer that.

Or to quote myself:

WTF are you talking about????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

1> 6.4m is not 6m.

I skipped decimals to be consistent, and due to larger uncertainties. When the difference is between the maps indicating 18-23 m (and about 1 m of flooding) and sea level rise of 6 m; the 0.4 m isn't that significant; especially as there are larger uncertainties in all values. There are standard scientific ways indicating uncertainty - they haven't used that.

2> That's only the mean global SLR for 3C warming, and they assessed up to 4C.

The image says 3°C.

3> Mean global SLR is not local SLR. That's kind of what the word "mean" means. If it were, they could just say "global SLR".

And that's why they should indicate the local SLR change; instead of hiding it behind a pixelated map with degree markings.

4> Mean sea level, and thus mean sea level rise, is not a high-water mark of any kind whatsoever. It does not account for tides, storm surges, wave action, anything like that.

The risk depictions they use include the tide; and still leave Durban city hall risk free at 3°C; and the image isn't even consistent with their risk for 4°C. And the other things aren't consistent with the images.