Our Father, who art in saucepans,
hallowed be thy name;
thy spaghetti come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in New Jersey.
Give us this day our garlic bread.
And forgive us our passatas,
as we forgive those who masala against us.
And lead us not into rice tasting;
but deliver us from weevils.
For thine is the pasta,
the meatballs, and the gravy
for ever and ever.
Ramen.
Pasta 19:1: The heavens declare the glory of spaghetti; the skies proclaim the work of His noodly appendages.
+1 for the S23.
I’ve been a Nexus/Pixel fan since the beginning but performance/battery is much better now the Samsungs have the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in them.
Camera is decent (marginally worse than Pixel for stills but better for video) and OneUI is far much more customisable and less obtuse than it was in the past.
Apologies, busy day, saw headline, made joke about our awful PM.
Pretty insensitive now I’ve seen someone died in the incident.
Just flog it to the UK for a few million. Rishi’s probably already looking into the possibility of housing migrants on it.
Pretty useful, in that they predict warming but not necesarily accurate.
I disagree, we do not know how well feedbacks are modelled or even if the models include all significant feedbacks. Correct me if you’ve found anything that contadicts these:
The albedo effect problem you mentioned is likely to happen faster than predicted as the latent heat of melting isn’t considered. The heat it requires to melt all that ice will instead heat the water around the remaining ice at a much higher rate.
IPCC doesn’t account for the aerosol cooling effect. If we cut our emissions there would likely be a rapid warming of 0.5-1.0°C within a couple of years as particulates in the air are blocking less sunlight.
The ice sheets don’t melt at a steady rate. Last time this much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere they ended up retreating 600m per day which should affect predictions.
Not strictly a feedback loop but worth mentioning… The earth contains less than 20% of the copper needed to produce the renewables required to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years, about 20% of the required nickel and less than 2.5% of the required lithium.
Yes it’s obviously way more complex than that. For instance, there are a lot of additional warming factors that haven’t been included in current studies or “suprises” to use your euphimism.
You seem to keep supporting my point.
The models are conservative, the peer review process is long and we’re rapidly running out of time.
And yet still the ice is melting faster than expected and faster than that model predicted, because, as you explain, the models are inaccurate (overly conservative in nature as all scientific studies on complex systems tend to be).
Oh naturally, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. Tell me, how does one conduct a scientific study on feedback loops which haven’t happened yet? Then tell me how many peers would be willing to risk their funding to verify such a pessimistic prediction?
I know they’re about emissions reduction, I didn’t say they weren’t and I don’t understand your point. All I’m saying is that it’s all well and good stating what we need but the feasibly of implementation is laughable.
I suggest you look into the resources required to extract the smallest amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. To quote Dr Hugh Hunt of Cambridge…
We don’t do anything on this planet at that scale. We don’t manufacture food on that scale, we don’t mine iron ore on that scale, we don’t even produce oil, coal, or gas on that scale.
Completely agree with you re the WWII mobilisation. That would require every government in the world to work together in actively worsening the lives of their citizens. Not exactly a vote winner is it?
The technical summaries are still ultra-conservative in their predictions and whilst their latest updates finally factor in some tipping points, the vast majority are left out to avoid alarm. To give you just one example, they predict the AMOC will not collapse before 2100. Take a look at the current North Atlantic temperatures and tell me in good faith that this is a sensible prediction.
Tautological argument, see above.
I mean the graphic you posted is literally entitled “Potential contribution to net emissions reduction, 2030”. And I think you vastly underestimate what it would take to sequest enough carbon to make any kind of difference.
Just realised you’re a mod here, why on earth are you allowing/posting conjecture such as that climate pessimism blog post if the purpose of this sub is to be truthful? It’s the biggest load of drivel short of denial I’ve read with regards to the climate. A whole essay from what I can only presume is a fossil fuel industry shill with literally nothing to back up any of its claims.
Friendly reminder that the IPCC is not a scientific body. It’s a mixture of politicians and advisors. As such all of the recommendations are heavily biased towards keeping the status quo, ie. Maximising economic output.
For more a realistic analysis please take a quick read through this excellent post which does a good job of collating all the data and omissions the IPCC reports conveniently leave out: https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7
But to take the IPCCs graphic at face value (we shouldn’t as it omits feedback loops), we’d have to implement all of those changes in the next 7 years to get to “net zero” which just isn’t happening at the current rate of progress.
The lag between emissions and warming would then mean that temperatures continue to increase for a couple of decades. Then, paradoxically, it would start to warm even more due to the aerosol masking effect disappearing.
Furthermore the proposed solutions in that graphic would require a lot of fossil fuels to produce along with lots of rare earth metals which we are on course to run out of before most of them are implemented.
If that’s in the sidebar then this is basically a greenwashing sub.
When 8-10°C are the degrees we’re looking at with no solution in sight it pretty much translates to “we’re fucked”.
You seem disproportionately optimistic for someone who seems to understand what’s going on. Care to share how you forsee us getting out of this mess?
This is one of the worst examples of climate change denial I’ve read. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was oil industry propaganda.
Invoking caterpillars and butterflies to argue some incoherent point about complexity was particularly pathetic.
Yeah I should have noticed before I posted, cheers for highlighting.
Also, civilsation is going to be brought to its knees by climate change in the coming decades.
Feels somewhat immoral to put someone you love through that.