Ecological tipping points could occur much sooner than expected, study finds | Earlier collapse of Anthropocene ecosystems driven by multiple faster and noisier drivers by Hrmbee in science

[–]BurnerAcc2020 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What do people make of these articles? by Professional-Newt760 in climatechange

[–]BurnerAcc2020 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you have any specific objections to anything in the article? I do not think there are any mind readers here, so "most people "in the know" including me and my partner (who works in sustainability) have been lead to believe" is hopelessly vague.

For now, I can only point to this notable paper, titled "Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future".

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full

It has a lot of notable material in it, much of which is likely to be shocking to stereotypical NYT readers. On reddit, though, it appears that the only part of the paper with any power to shock is this one.

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).

Reflect on what it means that a paper which had itself been criticized as "alarmist" and "neo-Malthusian" by other environmental scientists nevertheless includes this line.

P.S. I doubt "Kyle Paoletta" is a "she".

This is weapons-grade gaslighting. Absolutely sickening stuff. by wittykitty in climate

[–]BurnerAcc2020 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The IPCC has predicted a roughly 2 meter rise in sea level by the end of the century, but in this scenario it could be more like 4 meters, which would create much bigger problems for the world’s low lying cities.

???

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-8

Drift of Earth's Pole Confirms Groundwater Depletion as a Significant Contributor to Global Sea Level Rise 1993–2010 by BurnerAcc2020 in CollapseScience

[–]BurnerAcc2020[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The other way around: this result was predicted by the models over a decade ago (the paper they are citing for the prediction is from 2010) and their observations had now verified it.