• Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I expect climate change to be consistently worse than the mainstream predictions.

    There’s a huge political incentive to err on the side of downplaying than to exaggerate, and those models should have been bad enough to make the point.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      About a decade ago a group did a study on it.

      They first created a simplified model. That model was still a fairly good match with the fully featured models. They then varied the parameters around reasonable possible values. If scientists were using most likely assumptions, you would expect a 50/50 split of better/worse predictions.

      In practice it was 93% worse. Scientists were (unconsciously) using a lot of best case figures, not expected case.

      When I read about that, and the complete lack of follow-up coverage, I knew we were fucked.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 month ago

        Which I don’t blame the original scientists or studies for. Their predictions were bad enough that we should have done something then. It’s been clear for at least 30 years.

        They did what they thought would have the most traction and not get them dismissed as crackpots. And, to be clear, they were still within a margin of error. They weren’t generally wrong, considering their margins. It’s just that they’re not going to be perfect and they made the better choice.

        Even now it would be easier to dismiss climate change if the reality ended up better than predicted, even if it was still bad.

      • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I came to the same conclusion after reading papers and articles for years and every year it got a little bit worse and a little bit sooner. Just following the trajectory of the changes in their expectations told me that we would hit ~+6°C by 2100.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        One simplified model is not the reason for this. They’ve been expected to use a number of different climate scenarios in their work for a long time. Stop making shit up.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The point was to test for human bias in the data. The initial complaint was that scientists were cherry picking the data to make it look worse than it was. By looking at the spread, it showed they were minorly cherry picking to understate the problem. A fact that is now more and more obvious as it plays out.

          • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Funny you say that, my wife does climate change mitigation research. She definitely isn’t cherry picking data. Climate change is just very uncertain.

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              It wasn’t deliberate. It was more likely scientists being overly cautious about overstating their case. The end results pushed the normal agreed values closer to best case predictions rather than middle.

              This was back when the main models needed weeks of super computer time, so only a few were run, and everyone else analysed the shared results.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The cynic in me imagines that the media purposely promoted the longer timelines to lull people into thinking we had more time, and so there was no rush.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think it’s more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they’ll get impaled over being ‘alarmist.’

      And then (effectively) fired from their job.

      Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.

      EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.

      “Offended” did not begin to describe my reaction.

      I’ve been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:

      Well, if we redirected a significant portion of the global economy to custom airplane and chemical production, we could rain sulfuric acid over the poles and wipe out all life beyond a certain latitude, and maybe counter the warming some if we keep it up… ecological implications aside, its still rather impractical, but an order of magnitude cheaper than previous proposals. Shows table.

  • Comrade_Squid@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    We’re sitting in our rooms agitated, causing life long issue with sleepless nights, all while these fuckers that did this for greed sake are building climate controlled bunkers.

    Fuck rich removed

    see you next Tuesday is sencered? What else can we call them…

  • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s been a 73% decline in global vertebrate populations since 1970. We’re in the beginning of a very serious mass extinction and it’s kinda like we don’t care which is interesting.

      • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yup, second organism to cause a mass extinction but the first to self proclaim it’s intelligent.

          • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m still pretty solid on the idea we’re in an ancestor simulation or at minimum definitely not in base reality.

            • Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              Whatever helps get you through it. Functionally it makes no difference. The simulation runs particles smaller than atoms and the maximum speed is still light. Our universe is too vast for us to explore and there’s probably other life forms on planets too far away to matter. Our experience is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, yet the only thing we will ever do. Make it count while you’re here.

              • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                I mean the probability isn’t in our favor. As for us, yeah it doesn’t change much. Same for a lot of epistemological arguments. Last Thursdayism, Descartes demon, Plato’s cave, Chung Tzu’s butterfly, solipsism, Boltzmann brains could all be bang on right on the money. I see you’re taking the more so physical reality approach, even then if something like the holographic universe or some variation is correct then maybe distance doesn’t exist like we think it does. If for instance we’re in a black hole then there’s a one to one representation of all information here in what we consider 3D space on the black hole’s surface.

                All the fun ideas aside I agree with you although maybe our definitions of fun may be different. That is I think the first goal is to reduce needless and avoidable suffering for all minds anywhere in existence whenever possible. Like even if it is a simulation of sorts or reality just started ten seconds ago or what I’m experiencing is a Boltzmann brain it still doesn’t stop the first goal from at least being the best goal I’ve found so far.

      • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not saying you’re wrong but I don’t see the point in letting the population collapse. It will just bounce back later and probably be far greater assuming humans don’t go extinct before achieving sufficient space travel and colonies. That is also assuming we’re the only ones here and this isn’t like a controlled demolition of the human species by some other entity or force.

          • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I haven’t even ruled out last Thursdayism. Reality is strange, even in the most mundane interpretation.

        • shneancy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          no no you don’t understand, the billionaires want more money, the number simply must go up. and maybe they would care about the world if any of their workers would inform them of the consequences of each of their actions, but none that do stick around so the number keeps going up, fuck the consequences

          • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Possible but they’re holding summits trying to figure out how to maintain control in their bunkers when money no longer has value. I think they’re pretty aware of the situation at hand.

            • shneancy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              yeah but you just said it, they feel safe with their bunkers, the rest of the world be damned

              • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Safe until there’s a revolt and they become the bunker bitch or in a worse case tomorrow’s dinner. You see the issue? Can’t control people with money if money no longer has value.

                • shneancy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  of course, though i bet they’re working under the assumption that their defences are enough, or that they will be the last remaining humans out there. basically, hubris

                  greed and hubris are a powerful combo, unfortunately

    • omarfw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sociopathic billionaires with all of the power to do something about it absolutely don’t care if the world ends. They only care if they were on top before the game ended.

      • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not absolutely sure if. That’s true, seems to be more so a function of their age. Like if i’m 92 and the world ends then not so bad, but if I’m like 38 and the world ends then that’s sad.

        • omarfw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          You’re very right. We’re dealing with mostly rich old people who never cared about others while they were young and certainly don’t now that they’re about to die.

          People like elon musk will be around for a good while longer and I think people need to not underestimate just how mentally ill these people are. They’re not capable of caring about other people as much as themselve like normal people are. This is a key feature of sociopathic narcissism, and people like that are well equipped to traverse our economic system more successfully than anyone else because they have no morals or empathy holding them back. After enough decades of capitalism, the only ones on top are people like this and then it devolves into neo-feudalism.

          If any billionaire regardless of age cared about humanity, they would use their massive power and influence to help humanity and they simply choose not to.

  • wayward@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Truly wild.

    I’m in the northern us and traveled to Austin, TX for work recently.

    I departed at 72 degrees and raining and landed in 98 degrees with a 78 dew point. It was a heat index of 116.

    I understand exactly why the world is burning, watching all the people scurry from AC to AC in a state which derives most of it’s power from fossil juice. And then of course, everyone is driving a monster vehicle and coal rolling pedestrians and e scooter renters.

    We’re so fucked.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve accepted that we won’t survive the coming storm. Covid showed us that people couldn’t be bothered tonwear a mask or get a shot to fight off a disease that was visibly killing millions. If we can’t come together on that, there’s no way we’ll come together to survive the climate crisis.

    • huppakee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Do you mean ‘we, society as it is right now’ or ‘we, the human species’. Because i don’t really disagree, but at the same time i’ve seen people get through stuff i expected would kill them. I’m quite convinced some people will survive the storm. Might not be many if we continue this way though

      • MintyFresh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Oh humans will survive. We’re hands down the most adaptable species evolution ever spat out. Billions of us living as we have been? Definitely not. But make no mistake, it’ll be humans, cockroaches, and whatever’s going on on those deep sea vents left at the end.

        • 7101334@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          If anything is left, it’s not the end. Revolutionary optimism even in the face of extinction, man.

          That and the willingness to throw every billionaire into a woodchipper.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      O think humans well survive not through any planing or anything just that there is so damn many of us and we are adaptable that some well survive.

    • Geobloke@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      State where you’re from, because we complained but largely adhered to the mask thing in Australia.

  • GodofLies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 month ago

    Climate change deniers: “I’ll be dead by 2050, why do I care?” or “Fuck you, I got mine already.”

    Reality: FAFO.

  • Absurdly Stupid @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    You can argue with scientists all that you want to, they’re not infallible, it’s true.

    But you were warned for many decades, don’t act all shocked and surprised.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I love the futurama episode where it shows the actual data and the characters are like how could they have been so stupid an ignored that.

    • tamal3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I keep wanting to make “we are flocked” signs with arrows pointing at the cameras, but I don’t know if I should worry about putting them up.

  • Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Faster than expected, and worse than anticipated. It will get much faster and much worse. Practice growing your own food and stay in shape.

    • MoffKalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Every time the IPCC publishes a report it’s like: oh yeah may have gone way past the most pessimistic option this year, yet again, for the seventh time in a row, so here’s a new set of predictions that will surely not be overly optimistic this time round.

    • foofiepie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      So I was curious about this, and asked my barber (yesterday) how much the aircon he had installed was.

      I was told the unit costs (~£1600) were exceeded by the install/labour, and that all they did was the unit fitting & plumbing/pipe to the external unit. An electrician had to be separately hired to wire it all up.

      So I’m conservatively guessing somewhere around 3.5k all in.

      For one of those normal units, I’d estimate as about 70x25cm, cooling an area less than my living room.

      I’d say anyone looking for a trade in the UK right now, would be wise to skill up on doing it as a one stop shop, and cash in for the next decade.