Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumClimate emergency: world 'may have crossed tipping points'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-pointsClimate emergency: world 'may have crossed tipping points
Damian Carrington Environment editor
Wed 27 Nov 2019 18.00 GMT Last modified on Wed 27 Nov 2019 19.30 GMT
The world may already have crossed a series of climate tipping points, according to a stark warning from scientists. This risk is an existential threat to civilisation, they say, meaning we are in a state of planetary emergency.
Tipping points are reached when particular impacts of global heating become unstoppable, such as the runaway loss of ice sheets or forests. In the past, extreme heating of 5C was thought necessary to pass tipping points, but the latest evidence suggests this could happen between 1C and 2C.
The planet has already heated by 1C and the temperature is certain to rise further, due to past emissions and because greenhouse gas levels are still rising. The scientists further warn that one tipping point, such as the release of methane from thawing permafrost, may fuel others, leading to a cascade.
The researchers, writing in a commentary article in the journal Nature, acknowledge that the complex science of tipping points means great uncertainty remains. But they say the potential damage from the tipping points is so big and the time to act so short, that to err on the side of danger is not a responsible option. They call for urgent international action.
(snip)
The new article comes as the UN warns action is very far from stopping global temperature rise, with the world currently on track for 3C-4C. The commentary lists nine tipping points that may have been activated.
(snip)
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Already done so.
Response to nitpicker (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
calimary
(80,693 posts)Whats even more frightening is how many people just refuse to take delivery on it. Starting right from the top.
Response to calimary (Reply #3)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)Destroying the ecology which supports life on Earth is to commit suicide and to murder our children and their children.
Response to Martin Eden (Reply #4)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Aussie105
(5,211 posts)Global warming has been a fact for a while.
That we are in big trouble down the track has been a fact for a while.
And yet . . . there is no action! Don't we care? Are we that short sighted or complacent that no action is planned, not needed, not relevant?
I'm not going to see the worst of the effects on the human race, but my children will, and so will yours.
Yeah, call for urgent international action. Then stand back . . . and listen to the silence.
CousinIT
(9,151 posts)should be the headline.
Humans don't care about the world, the planet, or other species. They go on believing that's all separate from themselves. They collectively can not relate to "world crossed tipping points". What the hell does that mean to anyone? Not much.
But if humans are told day in and day out that THEY ARE ALL AT RISK OF TOTAL EXTINCTION (and that is NOT a lie, they are), then maybe a few more will pay attention because that makes it clear that this effects THEM (of course it does no matter how it's put verbally but the human brain and our conditioning has us believing that we don't need Earth, clean air, clean water, food or other species to survive).
These headlines need to be worded so as to REGISTER LOUDLY in the lizard brain that this is a matter of SURVIVAL.
Boomer
(4,159 posts)Humans are wired to react to what is front of us, the visceral threats, and far less so to conceptual threats that require uncomfortable, disruptive action. As the world's oligarchs suck wealth out of the global economy, the common person is focused on getting their family through today with food on the table and a roof over their heads. Making yet more sacrifices for a day "sometime" in the future just doesn't connect to people's sense of urgency. Urgent issues are where they're going to find $300 to fix the water pump in their car so they can get to work tomorrow and not lose their job.
It's easy for me -- with a comfortable bank account, a full-time job and excellent medical benefits -- to be concerned about the fate of human kind (I'm actually more worried about all the other species, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend I care what happens to people, too). My daily emergencies are easily handled; I have the luxury to lift my eyes to the horizon and contemplate the long game. I have a college-education and a life-long interest in science so that reading the climate change literature is something I enjoy (morbid pleasures?) and I trust my evaluation of its validity. And finally, as a childless woman reaching retirement age, I have the time to read about it every single day. I've been doing that for about 20 years, and I can see the progression and make some educated projections of where we're going (nowhere good).
CousinIT
(9,151 posts)Except to make it worse.
Humanity won't survive.
And it will be their own fault.
Even people living paycheck to paycheck can usually vote. Mostly, they don't. Or they're ignorant enough to vote for something like a Trump.
Collectively, we're a sad bunch. Too stupid to even save ourselves, much less other species. Pfft.
So disappointing.
Response to Boomer (Reply #7)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ponietz
(2,904 posts)Arbitrary figures. Whats the upper limit? The world is currently on track for a Venus redux.
864 degrees? The only operative question seems to be: how bad does it have to get before civilization crashes and the offending carbon emissions are halted? It should greatly curtail once the petroleum distribution ports are underwater.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)Javaman
(62,439 posts)We are past the point of no return in ours, our kids and grandkids lifetimes. Minimum of 500 to 1000 years to return to prior levels
Boomer
(4,159 posts)From the reading I've done, we're not looking at hundreds of years, not even thousands. The greenhouse gases we're pumping into the atmosphere -- along with the gases from feedback loops like thawing permafrost -- will be affecting the climate for TENS of thousands of years.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)To get from today's level back to a preindustrial level would take about 130,000 years - if we stopped adding any more CO2 today. If levels continue increasing to 560 ppm - double the pre-industrial concentration - it would take over a quarter of a million years to return to that level.
Face it, we're screwed six ways from Sunday.
Response to The_jackalope (Reply #14)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Boomer
(4,159 posts)CO2 scrubbers on a massive scale would require energy and resources on a massive scale, too. Where do we get that energy? Where do we get the materials to build those scrubbers?
Think about what we would need for this scheme: Building equipment to mine the materials, mining them, manufacturing scrubbers, distributing them around the globe, then powering them to run. And if all that works, then you have carbon that needs to be sequestered, so yet more activity to haul it away, bury it, monitor it.
This "solution" just added massive amounts of more CO2 to our tab.
Response to Boomer (Reply #20)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Well, um, not quite. It'sd an existential threat to the planetary biosphere. You know, the one we depend on for survival?
But no, let's keep the economy growing now, and pay the biophysical price later. Good deal, right? After all, you never know - either we'll solve it at some point or we'll be dead and it will be Someone Else's Problem.
Humans are just not wired to make good risk assessments, or to pay the necessary price even if they do see the threat. After all, how many of us here have gone back to living at the level we know is required?