• rf_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’ve read that the models used to predict the rate of change were too optimistic or an assumption about them was too conservative and thus not very realistic. Now we have data showing the models under-predicted the rate of change, so one argument is that we were already on this path since decades ago, we just didn’t model it right.

    In any case, we’re all fucked so who gives a shit anyway no?

    Is there a name for when we know what the right thing to do is but we keep not doing it?

    • midribbon_action@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      18 hours ago

      All of the climate models have adjustable parameters. We are still within the bounds of the worst case scenarios but scientists are always afraid to claim too much. An academic’s reputation is a lot less recoverable than a pop star or politician in the sense that they, and their colleagues, actually take their words and predictions seriously. I don’t want to completely dismiss the effect of lobbying and corruption toward the downplaying of global warming, but making smaller-than-necessary claims is a common sight in most academic fields.

      • BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I think it’s mostly in fields with exponential outcomes, which experiences the too conservative estimates.

        We as a species has a really hard time understanding exponential/accelerant movement, we expect the next decade to change as much as the previous one. Despite every decade has been changing more than the previous one did

      • protist@retrofed.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        No way in hell we’re facing an extinction event. Unimaginable human suffering, probably, but humanity will persist.

        • snoons@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Really depends on what happens with phytoplankton; if they can adapt well enough to survive the excessive heat. Some of them can but others are dying out. If we lose all of them, then everything that breaths oxygen is extremely fucked since they make ~70-80% of that oxygen. Then we only have plants and forests like the amazon to make O2 (and we all know how that ones going), and then we would also have to deal with the gasses produced by all the oceans on the face of the earth dying and everything in them rotting… if they’re not par-boiled.

        • edible_funk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Isolated pockets in relatively protected areas. Global society won’t survive it. Most of the places we grow food won’t be able to grow food, that’s already accelerating. Ocean acidification kills that food source. Blue ocean event accelerates runaway heating leading to massive hurricane force continental storms. Amoc shuts down and Europe ices over. Humanity may persist but civilization won’t.

          • Scrogu@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Vast current areas become arid but vast areas in Siberia and Canada become arable. Very bad but not extinction for humans. Likely extinction for many species though.

            • edible_funk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              15 hours ago

              None of that thawed soil will be worth a damn for growing at any scale. Like yeah there will be areas that are more or less hospitable but large scale agriculture will not recover

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

          We are adaptable creatures with command of technology. So we’ve got that going for us. We also have temperature limitations in which we can live, and so do our food sources. Then there’s the issue of potable water.

          It really depends on how far we’re pushed the planet’s ecosphere. It could do like before (most recent is the PETM) and hover high, then eventually equalize back into something not the same as we had, but similar. It’s done this before, albeit after millions of years. Or it could find a new equilibrium in another state, aka hothouse. Not Venus-like, as some media has spun it, but its own version of feedback to retain a lot more heat than now. Not great for anything that evolved in this climate.

          Fun fact: the PETM was the most recent heating event, 56 million years ago. Some species went extinct, others were able to adapt and survive as they evolved into smaller forms. The fun fact is that they adapted because the rate of heating change was over a large amount of time, many hundreds of thousands of years. Now look at us, a spike on the geological temperature graph in (looks at data) less than a 100 years (a few decades, really). So what kind of inertia does a more rapid acceleration usually give compared to a slower one? But hothouse Earth is just a speculation, just a guess. We don’t know how far this will go.

      • Snowies@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I’ve often wondered… What if we are way wrong about the level of danger, and ultimately climate change will turn Earth into another Venus, and we only find out once it’s too late?

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Is there a name for when we know what the right thing to do is but we keep not doing it?

      Hubris.