You must log in or register to comment.

CodeVirus t1_j8j5p35 wrote

Any more depressing news in the world of science?


Darkhorseman81 t1_j8kzbus wrote

Oh, and every single child on the face of the Earth was suffering lead poisoning due to anti knock additives in fossil fuels, which peaked under the boomers.

Extreme IQ loss and higher levels of impulse control disorders, violent and non violent crimes, and rare non genetic Narcissistic like behaviors.

The political elite created privatised prisons to make money from it.

P.S Rain water and river water now has unsafe levels of forever chemicals. Everywhere.

P.P.S The FDA just waved through 2000 cancer causing chemicals under Trump. So if we even get forever chemicals under control they have another plague lined up for us next generation.


needssleep t1_j8ldzci wrote

Does plastic count as forever chemicals? Because they can't find a source of drinking water without microplastics in it


Darkhorseman81 t1_j8led4f wrote

Forever chemicals are used in a lot of things. Plastic production, fire fighting foam, flame retardants(Linked to adhd), water proofing things like shoes.

There is a little overlap.


Darkhorseman81 t1_j8kyxgi wrote

We are suffering an infertility epidemic due to exposure to chemicals that leech from plastics.

Recycled plastics release 10 times more of these chemicals, and are a a fossil fuel industry Psy-op to keep us using fossil fuels.

There are some studies hinting at the fact we may be infertile within 3 generations.

These chemicals also cause more hermaphroditic traits and shrunken genitals.

What a system we live under, and have reinforced with extreme violence, huh.


jnelsoni t1_j8lem28 wrote

Infertility might be helpful.


Darkhorseman81 t1_j8lt1te wrote

If you mean future inbreeding and extinction, then sure.

Population actually isn't the problem. 10% are causing 90% of the damage.


SaxManSteve t1_j8m5pi4 wrote

Both can be true. It's true that western countries disproportionally use more energy and resources per capita than developing countries. It's also true that global human civilization is in an advanced state of ecological overshoot mainly because of overconsumption and overpopulation. We are currently consuming more resources than our ecosystems can regenerate naturally, we are operating beyond the earth's carrying capacity. On top of that we are dumping entropic waste back into the ecosphere in excess of nature’s assimilative capacities, which only speeds up the process of system wide ecological collapse that will absolutely lead to dramatic population contraction in the near future. In this sense, overshoot is actually the cause of climate change and numerous co-symptoms including plunging biodiversity, ocean acidification, tropical deforestation, landscape/soil degradation, contamination of food supplies, depleting aquifers, the pollution of basically every life-supporting system. Our contemporary growth obsessed technological civilization is literally consuming and polluting the biophysical basis of our own existence, and somehow we seem to think that there's nothing that can go wrong by adding a couple more billion humans on the planet.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8maaiv wrote

> which only speeds up the process of system wide ecological collapse that will absolutely lead to dramatic population contraction in the near future.

Not according to even the scientists who otherwise agree that the future would be "ghastly", though? > It is therefore also inevitable that aggregate consumption will increase at least into the near future, especially as affluence and population continue to grow in tandem (Wiedmann et al., 2020). Even if major catastrophes occur during this interval, they would unlikely affect the population trajectory until well into the 22nd Century (Bradshaw and Brook, 2014). Although population-connected climate change (Wynes and Nicholas, 2017) will worsen human mortality (Mora et al., 2017; Parks et al., 2020), morbidity (Patz et al., 2005; Díaz et al., 2006; Peng et al., 2011), development (Barreca and Schaller, 2020), cognition (Jacobson et al., 2019), agricultural yields (Verdin et al., 2005; Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007; Brown and Funk, 2008; Gaupp et al., 2020), and conflicts (Boas, 2015), there is no way—ethically or otherwise (barring extreme and unprecedented increases in human mortality)—to avoid rising human numbers and the accompanying overconsumption. That said, instituting human-rights policies to lower fertility and reining in consumption patterns could diminish the impacts of these phenomena (Rees, 2020).

Not to mention the more mainstream views like those of the IPCC (look at their population graphs).


SaxManSteve t1_j8mfa2n wrote

IPCC population projection models are often criticized for having simple assumptions. They generally model predicted population based on the expected rate of world GDP growth and the correlated predicted reduction in birth rates. They don't use a system dynamics based model, that could model the complexities of overshoot and climate change and its impacts on population. For example global warming will have varying levels of cascading non-linear effects on extreme weather events, things like increases in economic inequality, increase in domestic and international conflict, increase in state fragility, increase in pandemics, increase in population displacement and migration, decrease in ecological biodiversity, decrease in food, fuel, and water resources, increase in droughts and desertification of fertile land, increased fragility of global supply chains, ect..... None of these factors are part of the IPCC models, meaning that their predictions shouldn't be taken as realistic predictions of populations. Rather they should be seen as models that predict population numbers in a world where climate change and overshoot will have little to no impact on human civilization in the near future.

It's also no secret within academic climate science circles that the IPCC has long been politically motivated to underestimate the scale of the problem. Which is why very few climate scientists actually believe that the Paris Accord is realistic. We all know there is no chance the world can avoid 1.5 C mean global warming and that we will likely see a potentially disastrous 2 C increase by 2050. Many already assume that there will be no remaining carbon budget even for the 2 C target

The IPCC infamously fails to account for carbon cycle feedbacks and their associated tipping points when setting their own emissions targets. Meaning that even a 2C warming may well trigger irreversible runaway “hothouse Earth” conditions. In coming years, we will see an ice-free Arctic Ocean, more rapidly melting permafrost, methane releases, an increase in wildfires, and other short-term positive feedbacks that will put climate change on steroids.

Even in the best case, the world can expect more and longer heat waves and droughts, more violent tropical storms, extended wild-fire seasons, accelerating desertification, water shortages, crippled agriculture, food shortages, rising sea levels, and broken supply lines. Coastal cities will be flooded and some may eventually be abandoned. Many other cities are likely to be cut off from food-lands, energy, and other essential resources with the breakdown of national highway and marine transportation networks; this alone would make urban life untenable. According to the recent Environmental Risk Outlook 2021 (2021), at least 414 cities with a total 1.4 billion plus inhabitants, are at high or extreme risk from a combination of pollution, dwindling water supplies, extreme heat stress, and other dimensions of climate change.

From this perspective, it's absurd to even entertain the idea that adding 2+ billion more people on the planet in the next 20 years would be a good idea. We should be currently engaging in an international effort to reduce our current consumption, reduce our energy demand, reduce our birth rates, reduce economic inequality, and ultimately start to move away from a growth for the sake of growth economic model towards an ecologically sustainable economic system.

It's simply immoral and reckless to keep chugging along with the business as usual economic model. Doing so is to condemn billions of people to a brutish, painful and short life.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8rc44f wrote

So, my original response got eaten by reddit's spam filter (probably because I included the same link twice, but you'll never know with these things) and I'm going to have to try again, for posterity.

By now, many of the points I made in that comment were already made by others, like Spratt & Dunlop possessing very limited credibility, or that feedbacks are both slow enough relative to human emissions to operate over many centuries and are already accounted for in the IPCC reports to a great extent. In fact, even IPCC report #4 - which was first published in 2007 - already had a whole chapter on carbon cycle and other feedbacks.

The feedbacks which are more difficult to account for, like permafrost, still have an impact that's a fraction of human emissions.

I would simply like to reiterate the points around "crippled agriculture, food shortages", etc. It would appear true if you just look at the climate projections and assume that they'll apply to the current amount of land used to grow food. What that assumption misses is that the amount of land won't stay the same: the IPCC assumes that as the population grows and climate change accelerate, people will simply clear-cut down more, more and more forest to the tune of hundreds of millions of hectares and grow crops on that land. Compare the population/GDP graph from my earlier comment (not linking it again in case it also triggers the bot) with the land use graph, where cropland extent and forested land extent simply go in opposite directions in each scenario - to the point where a scenario with 12 billion people cuts down nearly 600 million hectares. This is also why food supply projections for 2050 look like this and like this, and not like what most people assume when only looking at yield reduction projections or the talk of instability.

And finally, yes, we should move to a non-growth and sustainable system. The thing is, it looks like we may well get away with not doing that in this century, even if the cost will simply be paid by the ecosystems and future generation. That is the position of the scientists who collectively wrote the "ghastly future" paper, and at this point, the counterarguments (whether optimistic or the opposite) appear increasingly strained.


Gemini884 t1_j8ns09o wrote

>The IPCC infamously fails to account for carbon cycle feedbacks and their associated tipping points when setting their own emissions targets.

Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports.

You probably should listen to what actual climate scientists say on the matter-\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120

There were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included too


There is no evidence for projected warming <3-4C of any tipping points that significantly change the warming trajectory. Read ipcc report and read what climate scientists say instead of speculating:

"Some people will look at this and go, ‘well, if we’re going to hit tipping points at 1.5°C, then it’s game over’. But we’re saying they would lock in some really unpleasant impacts for a very long time, but they don’t cause runaway global warming."- Quote from Dr. David Armstrong Mckay, the author of one of recent studies on the subject to Newscientist mag. here are explainers he's written before- (introduction is a bit outdated and there are some estimates that were ruled out in past year's ipcc report afaik but articles themselves are more up to date)



David Spratt and Ian Dunlop- authors of this "report" are same people who have written the report which was panned by scientists who fact-checked it-


No-Effort-7730 t1_j8mptt2 wrote

Bumping for visibility because that's a dank ass based response.


Gemini884 t1_j8oka7k wrote

Except they're wrong.


&gt;The IPCC infamously fails to account for carbon cycle feedbacks and their associated tipping points when setting their own emissions targets.

Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports.

You probably should listen to what actual climate scientists say on the matter-\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120

There were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included too

There is no evidence for projected warming <3-4C of any tipping points that significantly change the warming trajectory. Read ipcc report and read what climate scientists say instead of speculating:

"Some people will look at this and go, ‘well, if we’re going to hit tipping points at 1.5°C, then it’s game over’. But we’re saying they would lock in some really unpleasant impacts for a very long time, but they don’t cause runaway global warming."- Quote from Dr. David Armstrong Mckay, the author of one of recent studies on the subject to Newscientist mag. here are explainers he's written before- (introduction is a bit outdated and there are some estimates that were ruled out in past year's ipcc report afaik but articles themselves are more up to date)


David Spratt and Ian Dunlop- authors of this "report" are the same people who have written the report which was panned by scientists who fact-checked it-


grundar t1_j8q46kv wrote

> There is no evidence for projected warming <3-4C of any tipping points that significantly change the warming trajectory.

Just to back up this point, r/science discussed a paper in Science which examined known tipping points 5 months ago. I extracted a list of those tipping points, their thresholds, their effects, and their timescales.

As you say, none of the near-warming (<4C) near-term (<200-year timescale) tipping points had significant global effects on warming or sea level rise.


grundar t1_j8qdsbv wrote

> It's also no secret within academic climate science circles that the IPCC has long been politically motivated to underestimate the scale of the problem. Which is why very few climate scientists actually believe that the Paris Accord is realistic. We all know there is no chance the world can avoid 1.5 C mean global warming and that we will likely see a potentially disastrous 2 C increase by 2050. Many already assume that there will be no remaining carbon budget even for the 2 C target

That's an enormous number claims regarding what climate scientists believe, but the only source presented for any of it is a non-peer-reviewed report from an Australian think tank whose previous reports were criticized as alarmist, misleading, and lacking scientific credibility by scientist reviewers

And looking at the report itself, it's easy to see why. Their number 1 "critical understanding" cherry-picks only the IPCC scenarios which support their narrative:
> "Current (CMIP6) climate models project on average a warming of 0.3°C for the decade to 2030 (across the SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios)."

By contrast, the IEA expects CO2 emissions to fall 15-20% by 2030, putting the world roughly in line with the IPCC's SSP1-2.6 pathway -- a pathway they totally ignore*.

It's reasonable that they would want to include higher-emission pathways as well to examine the danger of less likely scenarios, but to exclusively examine higher-emission scenarios and completely ignore lower-emission scenarios that are as or more plausible? It's clear cherry-picking of data to establish a chosen narrative.

On to their number 2 "critical understanding":
> "Due to model limitations, we will not know exactly how the climate crisis will unfold until it’s too late.6 One example is the failure to predict the intensity of extreme heat and flood events in Europe and North America in 2021."

i.e., they're conflating climate and weather.

One heat wave or one flood is weather; by contrast, climate is the broad long-term trend. Failing to predict a particular flood or heat wave no more "proves" the IPCC models wrong than a cold winter "proves" the climate is not warming. They're making an utterly unscientific argument here.

Not everything they say is wrong -- notably they're quite right that warming has already caused significant effects and even 1.5C (which is unlikely) will cause more -- but enough demonstrably biased and unscientific claims are thrown in that this report could never pass robust peer review and is not a scientific source.


Hipoko t1_j8my2jo wrote

I dream to be as eloquent as you, SaxManSteve


Ballsaxolotl t1_j8mdh7l wrote

Why do places with virtually no environmental protections have such high birth rates? There will be plenty of people in the future. They'll just all die in their 40s


Darkhorseman81 t1_j8mdmm4 wrote

Humans breed in response to adversity. It's how we've succeeded as a species.

Have 7 children, even if one survives, genes passed on.

We overcome environment with sheer numbers.


0comment t1_j8lfncl wrote

It’s not so great for any of our existing economic systems though. Just like capitalism, socialism also relies on the right kind of population growth. Ie you need enough working adults to outnumber every other demographic. To keep this going, you need enough children. The reality is that the retired elderly is about to outnumber every other demographic. Our social safety nets in capitalism and socialism can only work if we can lower the number of retired elderly, or completely end programs like social security and Medicare.


lurker1101 t1_j8nn8h5 wrote

> Ie you need enough working adults to outnumber every other demographic

or corporations to pay their fair share of taxes


0comment t1_j8ogh7b wrote

The research behind birth rate decline accounts for socioeconomic factors ie it doesn’t matter if economy is great and everyone is earning well. The birth rate will still decline due to something that happened with industrialization. The only countries that aren’t seeing this yet are in central Africa.


Dr_Kintobor t1_j8mc77q wrote

Ok so i have a solution. We kill everyone once they turn 65/ stop being productive workers, and then we process them into protein bars. Like a Soylent Logan's Run. I never said it was a nice solution, but it would solve aging demographics and world hunger at the same time.


jnelsoni t1_j8nqoyr wrote

Or maybe we can just let young people have fun and eat free for a few years, then ship them out to biodynamic farms where they can work the soil by hand, utilizing no machinery or chemicals until death. The middle -aged can pull hand carts carrying produce to urban markets. Everyone has their ration cards and gets to eat, but labor is divided such that everyone gets a chance to have fun to the best of their ability in the pain-free years of life, and graduates to working closer to the land. When death comes it is usually closer to agricultural fields or in them, so less work needs to be done to move the bodies to the compost piles that fertilize the fields. In this way we can avoid directly eating people, but we would all still be cycled into food via soil inputs. If we did it without violence and guns, it would be more like the Smurfs than the Khmer Rouge.


Ryrynz t1_j8lvnaa wrote

The world at this point and time literally cannot sustain the population. It ideally needs to be halved.


teryret t1_j8l7qfg wrote

Well, fundamental physics is stalling. We know there's stuff we don't know, but we're running out of ideas for how to figure it out.


teryret t1_j8l6iq2 wrote

If political science counted I'd offer, "US China relations aren't great"


Aardark235 t1_j8jgw69 wrote

More depressing is that a vast majority of Redditors are unwilling to make any sacrifices in order to fight climate change. They want the burden to be placed on some bogeyman.


Under_Over_Thinker t1_j8jln8a wrote

If it was up to redditors. Only governments and their coordinated action can make impact. My wife picks up garbage on the road sides, we recycle and drive 1-2 times a week. So what? Unless producers change how they manufacture goods, ranchers feed cows those seaweed supplements, carbon capture facilities are built, energy production is green — there will be no impact.

Do you seriously think that a small fraction of the population who posts on reddit can make that change?

Climate change is like a war. Individuals can’t win it. You need governments (plural) to regulate the industry and rebuild the economy. No private company, like Tesla or Bill Gates’ initiatives will do the job.

Reddit audience is unfortunately not representative of the US population.


xlllxJackxlllx t1_j8jnqt4 wrote

I heard the the war analogy on a podcast once. The speaker said that we would have to mobilize like we did in WWII, but x10.

IMO, anything less and our global society is going to collapse.


paceminterris t1_j8jnzw6 wrote

When we talk about individual action, we aren't talking about recycling.

Corporations can't magically find a "green" way to manufacture all the creature comforts we demand to consume, because the very products themselves are carbon-intensive. The only way to realistically make a difference is to curtail most industrial manufacturing, which DOES imply that ordinary people are going to have to make cutbacks and change their lives.

Here is a list of things that BOTH corporations AND individuals need to eliminate in order to have a shot at fighting climate change:

Personal vehicles, air travel, air conditioning, meat and animal products, single family homes, and electronics. Does it sound extreme? Sure, but these are extreme times. We ignored the warnings for decades.


Under_Over_Thinker t1_j8jx199 wrote

You are right about what and by whom it needs to be done.

My point is that neither individuals nor the companies will do that unless the government creates programs and laws that would enforce and facilitate the process. And it’s not just about writing the law. It’s about finding the way all the undertakings can really be implemented.

Also, when I mentioned recycling, I meant exactly what you are saying. That recycling does almost nothing to prevent the climate change.


GapingFartBoxes t1_j8k5ir1 wrote

Laws are easily circumvented.

The only possible solution is through collective consumer action, especially first world consumers.

I always found it amusing how people scream " individual actions are meaningless compared to corporations!" But in the same breath they'll tell you voting is important.

You can't have both. Either collective action (voting and consumer choices) can be effective, or they can't. You can't have one without the other. It's called supply and demand. Consumers demand from companies. If everyone stopped buying stuff on Amazon, Amazon would go out of business.

Most first worlders are aware of this, but they're so entitled and fat that they think everyone else should have to change while they don't.

That's human nature for ya.


Telemere125 t1_j8ku3sy wrote

What you’re suggesting is that I change my lifestyle while also relying on my neighbor to voluntarily their habits; if it’s not a government regulation, it’s not going to happen in meaningful enough numbers. The burden isn’t on individuals; it’s on governments and corporations.


HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8jyyma wrote

Do all you want to help, and some corporation will still dump 1000 lifetimes of pollution into the environment in one day. This is a problem that individuals have no control over.


Aardark235 t1_j8jzrdh wrote

Residential and transportation represents 53% of energy consumption. Add in commercial use and the total is 65%. Industry is not dominating the numbers.

All of these uses could be dramatically decreased simply by drilling less, digging less, and increasing the costs of fossil fuels via taxes. It’s the simple answer that nobody wants to hear. Everyone wants to just blame an evil corporation instead of making moderate sacrifices.


HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8ka8kv wrote

Evil corporations are why we haven't moved to a nuclear grid 50 years ago. I need to heat my house, there's snow outside and the method of generating that heat is decided by the people who own the resource extraction process and the refining. They also own the politicians who make legislation. You're suggesting we "simply" redefine society from the ground up while holding no power to do so.


Aardark235 t1_j8kh1c4 wrote

You must have forgotten about three mile island… virtually all environmental groups came out anti-nuclear. Still mostly that way.


HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8khk6y wrote

Evil oil companies fund them to propagate anti nuclear propaganda. Are you aware that the two largest nuclear accidents have less dead people in these instances than 6 months of fossil fuel production every year?


Aardark235 t1_j8kiha9 wrote

I am well aware of the safety of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. That doesn’t take away from the mass hysteria that led to a stoppage of new plant construction globally.

Nice to blame the bogeyman, but society has responsibility on this one.


HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8kir74 wrote

The hysteria was literally funded by oil and gas. It still is. Society is steered by money and the politicians that they own.

What in your mind is the way we get people to stop drilling, stop using cars and just outright curb fossil fuel use? What mechanisms in society exist for us to do this, specifically?

Edited grammar 2nd edit. Also globally there have been dozens of new plants built and dozens more planned.china has built 53 and has 24 more planned. Seems like good planning.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8mpps3 wrote

You know that those Chinese nuclear plants amount to 5% of their electricity needs, right? If anything, the US already has about twice as many reactors as China and more than anyone else in the world - yet those are just 18% of the US' electricity.

A fully/mostly nuclear grid in the US is always presented as if it's a matter of building just a few more reactors, when the reality is that without a major reduction to the current levels of electricity consumption, you would have to build (and operate) a few hundred more of them. If you think that oil and gas industry is the only reason the US did not build 300/400 more nuclear power plants by now...well, OK, I guess.


HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8mt2om wrote

No the scale of our electrical needs is easily met with nuclear. We just can't let capitalism run them.

Also op was talking about recently built reactors and new ones planned, China has built the most recently and has planned the most in the future. Why does everyone want to ignore the literal billions of dollars oil and gas has spent to spoil people's opinions on nuclear energy to the point that you just can't fathom building hundreds of plants around the globe.

Edit: what mechanisms exist in society that will allow us, the working class to change things to the point that we don't require as much energy in the future? Capitalism only knows consumption, and they're in charge. They own the oil and gas and they own the politicians that legislate. The future is the poor getting priced out of energy and dying, it's not a utopia of reduced emissions ushered in by shell, ExxonMobil and Halliburton continuing record profits.


mrbittykat t1_j8kfydm wrote

I’m recycling and riding my bike as much as I can man, I even stopped my personal train from derailing in Ohio and shut down my lithium mine.. what more do you want from me?!


Harucifer t1_j8kl8dy wrote

>More depressing is that a vast majority of Redditors are unwilling to make any sacrifices in order to fight climate change

I take 5 minute showers every other day, I hold my pee as long as possible to minimize flushes, I have solar panels to generate electricity, and I don't have plants that require regular watering. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FOR ME ? Meanwhile businesses waste tons of water on lack of efficiency or flat-out mistakes. They aren't "bogeyman", they are the problem.


DarthVap3rrr t1_j8kzxc7 wrote

He’s completely delusional just willfully ignorant.


ImproveorDieYoung t1_j8ku4wu wrote

Yeah, blame the poor people who live week to week and not the multinational corporations dumping garbage into the sea and spewing poison into the air by the tons.

100 companies cause 70% of all emissions. And renewables haven’t taken off to the point where everyone can power their homes and vehicles totally sustainably. So if given the choice to freeze in the winter and burn in the summer, I’m positive the majority of the population will continue to pay their gas and electric bills and drive their cars to continue to survive.

If the government and corporations wanted to force significant change that would allow everyone to live more sustainably, they could do it. But they don’t. And don’t tell us that biking to work and using paper straws will help, because we’re not the ones mass producing all this garbage for consumption.


PaintingWithLight t1_j8k4xdw wrote

You’ve been fooled by the corporations, corporations PR(successfully executed) has shifted blame away from them towards consumers.

Which, I do agree is a bit of an issue with rampant materialism and consumerism too extreme. But think about the amount of pollution from cruise ships. There are many, but not THAT many and they pollute some obscene percentage of the total populations emissions. Funnily enough, they don’t even mention the mega cargo ships, and I don’t know the number, but my logic says there are WAY more cargo ships then cruise ships.

Yes, I know less cargo ships would be used if the population didn’t want as much useless stuff so regularly.


TheFinnishChamp t1_j8jrh7y wrote

That's the way all animals are, shortsighted and selfish. People who are climate aware consume just as much as the ignorant.

If we have the ability and choice to consume, produce and reproduce at unsustainable levels we will. That ability and choice needs to be taken away.


blondboii t1_j8kk30g wrote

Like hold the global elite accountable for their vast proportion of ghg emissions?


DeaconOrlov t1_j8ky3eg wrote

Like the rich? This isn't an issue individuals can affect, the are society wide systemic problems and you and me don't have a whole to do with things that could actually make an impact


9273629397759992 OP t1_j8iu67m wrote

Plain language summary:

A team of international scientists has published a study in Nature Communications which warns that if global temperatures cannot be stabilized below 1.8°C, the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will be lost and sea levels will rapidly rise. The study states that this increase in sea level would be on top of other contributions, such as the thermal expansion of ocean water. The study highlights the need for computer models to capture all components of the climate, as well as new observational programs to accurately represent physical processes in the ice sheets. If global net zero carbon emissions cannot be reached by 2060, then sea levels will continue to rise by at least 100 cm within the next 130 years. This would be on top of other contributions, such as the thermal expansion of ocean water.


grundar t1_j8ke9q1 wrote

It's worth noting that this paper is actually good news, as it predicts lower global sea-level rise contributions from ice melt than previous models did; from the Abstract:
> "The combined effect is likely to decelerate global sea-level rise contributions from Antarctica relative to the uncoupled climate-forced ice-sheet model configuration."

In "Discussion" they call this out specifically for high-emission scenarios:
> "In our high-emission scenario model simulations that include parameterizations for hydrofracturing, ice-cliff instabilities, and capture sea-ice and atmospheric responses, the net impact of ice-sheet/climate feedbacks on SL rise is negative."

It looks to be a fairly marginal change, though; the projected amount of sea-level rise is still enough to be a serious problem, impacting where hundreds of millions of people currently live.


AndyTheSane t1_j8m2doo wrote

I'm a bit dubious about this; paleogeographic studies point to large (as in around 20m) sea level rises from the kind of temperature rise we've already seen or can project in a few decades. Now, it could be a matter of timing - it might take 1000 years or so for the full ice-sheet response - but it's not exactly reassuring.


grundar t1_j8nobbf wrote

> I'm a bit dubious about this

What exactly are you dubious about? That the paper predicts lower sea level rise than previous models, or that either way the sea level rise will be enough to have serious consequences?

Your phrasing makes it seem like you're disagreeing with me, but I don't see which part you're disagreeing with.

> Now, it could be a matter of timing - it might take 1000 years or so for the full ice-sheet response - but it's not exactly reassuring.

There's a massive difference between "20m of sea level rise in 80 years" and "20m of sea level rise in 1,000 years".

In particular, my understanding is that paleographic studies are generally of the form "temperature went up 5C and sea level went up 20m over the course of 10ky", meaning sustained temperature increase led to large sea level rise. There's not really any hope of seeing temperatures 80 years from now back to pre-industrial levels, but IPCC scenarios like SSP1-2.6 see temperature starting to fall by then, meaning it could be back to pre-industrial levels within a century or two.

As a result, if a certain amount of sea level rise requires only 80 years of sustained temperature increase of 1.5-2C, we have little hope of avoiding that. By contrast, if that amount of sea level rise requires 1,000+ years of sustained temperature increase of 1.5-2C, there's quite good odds of avoiding some, most, or potentially even virtually all of that.

In general, the known ice melt tipping points take thousands of years. I extracted a list of those tipping points from a paper previously discussed on r/science, and the timescale for 10m+ of sea level rise looks to be about 2,000 years (mainly West Antarctic ice sheet and East Antarctic subglacial basins).


SeaUrchinSalad t1_j8osz3h wrote

If the water rises slow enough, we might get lucky and find lots of it falling on land and recharging aquifers, which would reduce the amount in the ocean and contributing to the rise. Not by much though


3trt t1_j8piy0t wrote

That's a stretch. Most global warming models predict droughts. Sure more water will fall in places, but it's not normally where we need it for agriculture or it comes as monsoons and washes away to the ocean as quick as it came.


SeaUrchinSalad t1_j8q9eqv wrote

Yea we need to get good at hydro geo engineering to capture those monsoons and fast


californiarepublik t1_j8izc8a wrote

This estimate seems extremely conservative...? Only 100cm in 130 years?


starmartyr t1_j8jcb13 wrote

That might not sound like much, but it's enough to put dozens of major cities underwater.


Techie9 t1_j8kxdnq wrote

By my calculations, this predicts about an inch of sea level rise every three years. Hopefully this will give civilization enough time to slowly move away from the current sea level.


kytopressler t1_j8jbtbd wrote

Their estimate of SLR is the opposite of a conservative one, their estimate is at the upper range of previous estimates. Edwards et al. (2021) provided us with the most up-do-date results from the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (ISMIP6) for Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6).

From Park et al. (2023), this paper,

>For the SSP1-1.9, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios the GrIS contributes about 12 ± 1, 18 ± 0.9 and 23 ± 1.6 cm and the AIS adds 3 ± 0.8, 7 ± 1.4, and 15 ± 1.5 cm to SL by the year 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels (Fig. 2c, d). 2100 CE (2150 CE) LOVECLIP simulates for the respective scenarios a total ice-sheet contribution to SL of 15 ± 0.9, 24 ± 1.3, 39 ± 2 (19 ± 1.4, 48 ± 1.4, 136 ± 6.2) cm (Fig. 2b).

Compare this to Edwards, from Table 1, which reports median and 5th-95th percentiles, under SSP5-8.5 by 2100, the GrIS contributes 10cm [2,20], the AIS contributes 4cm [-4,14].

Note however, that Park is reporting SLR from pre-industrial, while Edwards is reporting post-2015 SLR, which means you would need to subtract the pre-2015 contributions for a complete comparison. This would have the effect of subtracting less than ~1cm from GrIS, and ~2cm from AIS in Park.

In fact, the AIS contribution found in Park is closer to the median in Edwards' worst-case "Risk-averse projection" which combine assumptions that lead to the highest AIS contribution.

In short, this paper's results for 21st century SLR are from from "conservative" in the sense that they actually fall within the upper range of probability of previous research. They themselves note,

>The GrIS and AIS contributions lie within the range of estimates obtained from uncoupled scenario-forced models for Greenland and Antarctica

Edit: A previous version of this comment was in complete error, mea culpa!


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8mbcxg wrote

No, I have to say that you misread the paper here.

The first sentence you quoted discusses estimates for the 21st century (i.e. up until 2100), and it explicitly refers to AIS (Antarctic ice sheet) contribution. The actual paper's estimate in the second sentence is by 2150, not 2100, and it refers to ice-sheet contributions - i.e. Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland.

You need to look at Figure 3 of that paper. You'll see that in d), their estimate for AIS alone under SSP5-8.5 (the orange line - the higher yellow line is a more primitive simulation of the same scenario they run for comparison) is about 0.2 m by 2100 and 0.7 m for 2150.


kytopressler t1_j8np0u0 wrote

Thanks, you're completely right! Very terribly sloppy work on my part. I corrected it, read: completely replaced it, with a comment that actually directly compares apples to apples


surkacirvive t1_j8lc9ms wrote

It's worth noting that a storm surge that's already 100cm higher will be devastating, not to mention climate change increasing the frequency and severity of storm cycles


dragonfliesloveme t1_j8kuiby wrote

I mean, the powers-that-be are not even trying to reach zero emissions. Big Oil is still running the world, and they intend to make every last penny from the last drop of oil.

It will be a great day when Big Oil doesn’t run the world. As long as there is a manageable world left.


SuspiciousStable9649 t1_j8k2gr1 wrote

Well, not with the current population.


impersonatefun t1_j8ke4ii wrote

Which does already exist, so …


SuspiciousStable9649 t1_j8kfedt wrote

You know a lot of people are going to die, right? This isn’t some fairy tale where we stop putting animals in a cage and force feeding them for months. There are skyscraper pig farms in China. It’s only going to get worse.


Ixneigh t1_j8jj8xv wrote

Sea levels gone up 6 inches in the last 30 years.


hotdogbo t1_j8k243y wrote

There’s a climate change skeptic subreddit. On there, they keep sharing sea level monitors that show little to no change. I wish someone had a good retort to their data.


helm t1_j8k7n8n wrote

There's no defense against goal-oriented cherry-picking.


Bucky_Ohare t1_j8kc20a wrote

So, fun fact, there are places where sea level is remaining neutral or even gently receding.

The part that goes along with this, however the deniers wanna gloss over it, is that there is also significant crust uplift going along with it. Since we measure from our shore markings this looks like it’s going ‘down’ in some places despite overall sea level continuing upwards.


Ixneigh t1_j8n7jwa wrote

I’m also in a very geologically stable area. 6 inches.


Kalapuya t1_j8ki2iq wrote

Sea level rise is not linear and is not rising uniformly or at all in some places. Many places are experiencing zero or even negative sea level change. This variance can occur even on a kilometer-by-kilometer basis. It is primarily driven by changes in ocean currents, wind, sea surface temperatures, and tectonic and other hydrological dynamics.

On the Oregon Coast for example, some low-lying areas will likely experience 12-18”+ of SLR by 2050. Other areas (primarily in the south), are undergoing rapid tectonic uplift that will outpace sea level rise until at least the mid 2030s, and may experience few impacts because of the high continental freeboard.

These systems are highly dynamic and variable, but it is clear that overall global sea level is rising on average at a MUCH higher rate compared to the historical record and will lead to costly impacts for many communities.


midclassblues t1_j8kdrli wrote

There are plenty of sea level gauges around the United States, some having been in operation over 100 years. NOAA has analyzed these quite a bit and they show some sea rise over the years. I estimated an 8 inch rise at Key West over 100 years based on their data.

I believe the point of all these studies is not to look at what happened, but what will happen well in to the future. The past 100 years is not a good way to estimate future changes in the ocean. That's not a good retort, but the biggest changes have not happened yet. A 6" rise in the last 100 years is still not insignificant.


jfuite t1_j8ke1of wrote

It’s difficult to retort because sea levels are not rising quickly. The tidal gauge records from harbors around the world are centuries long, and they mostly indicate very slow linear sea level rise since before modern industrialization.


Ixneigh t1_j8n7fhr wrote

I have lived in the same estuary for four decades now, much of it spent in the water. I’m familiar with the tides, passes, channels and bars. Every marginal area I have to have a certain water depth to make it over. This is my life. As a child I frolicked on a bedrock shoal that bared at low water. That area no longer dries out. 6 inches m’dears.


Peter_deT t1_j8m9ohl wrote

Tide gauges give you a historical baseline. Satellite radar altimeters give you sea-level at any place to within a few millimetres. That's how they know about the dips and rises. They now have records over several decades.


SuspiciousStable9649 t1_j8k2c1l wrote

I have empirical evidence not enough people care.


piratey_goodness t1_j8ky89p wrote

Plenty of people care, but the aristocracy spends literally billions of dollars on propaganda every year to fight information.


popcorntrio t1_j8kzfz6 wrote

*not enough people that are in a position to change things care. We can recycle all we want, but the billionaire companies that do 99% of the damage will never stop polluting the atmosphere because of money


fudgebacker t1_j8l9t2l wrote

No worries. The unseen hand of the free market will solve all problems!


Ok_Champion6840 t1_j8jf1zz wrote

vote for Democrats


Aardark235 t1_j8jh8h8 wrote

Oil drilling has doubled under Biden. He has done just enough to greenwash his administration, but doesn’t make a real impact in this regards.

Lots of other very important reasons to vote D, but not germane to this sub.


cardcommander7147 t1_j8jxe6m wrote

Biden is moderate. With enough left leaning democrats in office this wouldn't occur. It's a straw man argument.


GapingFartBoxes t1_j8k83dq wrote

Pretty sure democrats drive cars and eat food made possible by burning fossil fuels.

There are alternative lifestyles, but I don't see liberals rushing to go live on communes or with the Amish.


Aardark235 t1_j8jy2gt wrote

How many left leaning democrats criticized Biden’s tapping into the strategic oil reserve to lower gas prices instead of celebrating the decreased global oil supply?


TheNorthernLanders t1_j8l4p72 wrote

How are those oil profits? Maybe we should turn the mic back around on those companies first.


Aardark235 t1_j8lewr9 wrote

Nationalizing the oil companies will be the final transformation of the GOP into a Venezuela style kleptocracy. If you think the current issues are bad, and they are bad, wait until they get a trillion dollar industry as their personal piggy bank.


Orcus424 t1_j8jid4i wrote

Source? I'm not saying it's not true but it's good to see a source. Most likely it dropped dramatically because the pandemic really slowed or halted production then limited it for quite a while. No point in pumping if you don't need it.


Aardark235 t1_j8jsc6a wrote

384 going up to 784. Pandemic certainly was the cause of the drop during Trump. The key point is that Biden is enthusiastic about drilling, with equal fervor as any Republican President.

His poll numbers will melt if he came out and said he wanted to double gas prices to fight climate change.,with%20roughly%20106%20gas%20rigs.


Ok_Champion6840 t1_j8jkwuq wrote

Oil drilling is a beast without regard for who is in charge. Developing alternatives is the realm of democratsZ


[deleted] t1_j8kfsmv wrote

I'm sure the ~95% of people in the world who are not US-Americans are very excited to hear it's that simple.


Ok_Champion6840 t1_j8kssos wrote

Everyone says they US is the problem, I guess when you are looking for an excuse to be contrarian they are not.

Vote against the Chinese communist party doesn’t really apply for humans wishing to stay out of prison.


Xarkkal t1_j8kbmw9 wrote

We Did

It Doesn't Matter


Ok_Champion6840 t1_j8ksede wrote

Probably not at this point, probably did when I made this point in 1984 but whatever.


Torewin t1_j8ka3ub wrote

Yes, either of the two party system will maintain these numbers. Possibly accelerate.


PsychologicalLuck343 t1_j8k8e1g wrote

What do you think is going to happen once the ocean is dead? What will 80% of the population do for food when they can no longer depend on seafood? They will come inland for the food, what other option do they have???


adornoaboutthat t1_j8m0g58 wrote

If the ocean dies, so will humanity. The ecosystem aka the web of life is interconnected.


Maybe_its_Ovaltine t1_j8lbqwp wrote

Food won’t be the only problem. If the ocean gets too warm it’s currents will stop and, well, bye bye global climate regulation.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8m9ike wrote

There's no need to think about it because it's not going to happen in the first place.

Studies show that even warming of over 4 degrees by the end of the century (which is higher than what is now expected) reduces ocean biomass by about 20%.

>Significant biomass changes are projected in 40%–57% of the global ocean, with 68%–84% of these areas exhibiting declining trends under low and high emission scenarios, respectively.
>...Climate change scenarios had a large effect on projected biomass trends. Under a worst-case scenario (RCP8.5, Fig. 2b), 84% of statistically significant trends (p < 0.05) projected a decline in animal biomass over the 21st century, with a global median change of −22%. Rapid biomass declines were projected across most ocean areas (60°S to 60°N) but were particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic Ocean. Under a strong mitigation scenario (RCP2.6, Fig. 2c), 68% of significant trends exhibited declining biomass, with a global median change of −4.8%. Despite the overall prevalence of negative trends, some large biomass increases (>75%) were projected, particularly in the high Arctic Oceans.
>Our analysis suggests that statistically significant biomass changes between 2006 and 2100 will occur in 40% (RCP2.6) or 57% (RCPc8.5) of the global ocean, respectively (Fig. 2b, c). For the remaining cells, the signal of biomass change was not separable from the background variability.

>Mean projected global marine animal biomass from the full MEM ensemble shows no clear difference between the CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations until ~2030 (Fig. 3). After 2030, CMIP6-forced models show larger declines in animal biomass, with almost every year showing a more pronounced decrease under strong mitigation and most years from 2060 onwards showing a more pronounced decrease under high emissions (Fig. 3). Both scenarios have a significantly stronger decrease in 2090–2099 under CMIP6 than CMIP5 (two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test on annual values; n = 160 for CMIP6, 120 for CMIP5; W = 12,290 and P < 0.01 for strong mitigation, W = 11,221 and P = 0.016 for high emissions).
>For the comparable MEM ensemble (Extended Data Fig. 3), only the strong-mitigation scenario is significantly different (n = 120 for both CMIPs; W = 6,623 and P < 0.01). The multiple consecutive decades in which CMIP6 projections are more negative than CMIP5 (Fig. 3b and Extended Data Fig. 3b) suggest that these results are not due simply to decadal variability in the selected ESM ensemble members. Under high emissions, the mean marine animal biomass for the full MEM ensemble declines by ~19% for CMIP6 by 2099 relative to 1990–1999 (~2.5% more than CMIP5), and the mitigation scenario declines by ~7% (~2% more than CMIP5).

In fact, it was estimated a year ago that a mass extinction in the oceans would happen only if the emissions somehow continue to shoot straight up for 300 years. In fact, even that scenario, which would result in about ~12 degrees of warming, would "only" drive about 40% of the species in the ocean extinct. -


PsychologicalLuck343 t1_j8my5wp wrote

I just looked at your last reference so I have no idea how much you've skewed the rest of your diatribe, but the Princeton study you've referenced shows we're on track for major ocean extinction by 2100. And we all know big oil has made zero plans for actually curbing emissions.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8n1rxa wrote

Well, don't be lazy and read the rest then. Off you go! I have no real obligation to write more and repeat what those references already explain. Your last sentence is rendered irrelevant by my very first link. My last link is the graph from that exact same Princeton study and it's the one which shows extinction levels not matching the Big Five extinctions until at least 2300. (You would have seen it if you read the entire article.)


Ghilanna t1_j8nyhmo wrote

Its not just the big oil that has to answer for peptecting the seas... farming industry has to cut down on nitrogen based fertilizers (fortunatly projects around Europe are being put forward) and overfishing needs to stop.


tmpka t1_j8jyijk wrote

Cool, when are we switching to nuclear?


blondboii t1_j8kjv2w wrote

The rich will awake to the future dystopian nightmare approaching and change course, early enough to avoid the proverbial iceberg, to save the world from total collapse, won’t they?


druffischnuffi t1_j8mvmk1 wrote

We (citizens of industrialized nations) cannot blame it on the rich because in the global context we belong to the rich too


Darkhorseman81 t1_j8kyiho wrote

Sieze all the assets of the political and fossil fuel elites, then move them real close to the ocean.

Turn it into a reality TV show called Accountability


NailFin t1_j8ldfdr wrote

I’m in NC and for several days now, I’ve been running around outside in a tee-shirt as I’m doing yard work getting ready for planting. … it’s February, supposedly the coldest month of the year.


specialsymbol t1_j8npokt wrote

Shocking. This must have come as a total surprise.

It's worse than anticipated and happened sooner than expected.


AutoModerator t1_j8itexk wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


ardvark_11 t1_j8ll7dl wrote

I’m the problem. It’s me.


Coenclucy t1_j8okiwu wrote

We got one earth, ain't no planet B. Just one earth, our only home naturally. Be a rebel for life: act in unity! -G Ras


Absinthe_86 t1_j8pesxn wrote

The worst part to me is how bad it will have to become for people to truly acknowledge our human impact.


APEHASKILLEDAPE t1_j8l2xnc wrote

Damn, I guess I still have to go to work tomorrow.


bilgediver t1_j8l78t9 wrote

I refer you to Konstantin Kisin's speech at the Oxford Union.

You're not going to get 3rd and 2nd world nations to stop progress. Are you going to tell the rural Russian or Chinese farmers that they have to keep their hole in the ground instead of building a heated toilet?

I will quote someone most of you will probably "hate" so I won't name him. Humans suck at prevention, but we are MASTERS at adaptation. What will help solve this is to drive, to create, to work, to build and engineer solutions for the earth as a whole. So when those Indians are trying to build out of their squalid living conditions, they can do so in a much more "earth friendly" way than the current 1st world nations did.


DarthFister t1_j8jmh8q wrote

So is it fair to say that we NEED solar radiation management now? Seems like there is no way to reduce emissions in the timeframe that we have left. Buying ourselves more time looks like the only way forward.


LoudNinjah t1_j8l6dk5 wrote

It's supposed to be 32° in Los Angeles tomorrow night. Doesn't feel like we're warming up at all.


ScientificQuail t1_j8lf2kf wrote

Stop acting stupid. The "hurrdurr it's cold so global warming must not be real" trope from you climate change deniers is getting tiring.


commentist t1_j8jx3mu wrote

I start to believe as soon as All Gore ocean side house is going to be for sale.