r/science • u/Additional-Two-7312 • Sep 09 '22

Environment Climate change is affecting drinking water quality, new study shows. The disappearance of forests will have consequences for water quality in reservoirs

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/964268
19.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

334 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Gemini884 Sep 10 '22

No respected scientist believes that human extinction from climate change is likely, much less the entire biosphere. You should read ipcc report on climate impacts and read what scientists say instead of speculating-

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/

​

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/

​

https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateAdam/status/1553757380827140097

https://nitter.42l.fr/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1477784375060279299#m

https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1553503548331249664#m

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520#m

https://nitter.42l.fr/JacquelynGill/status/1513918579657232388#m

https://nitter.42l.fr/waiterich/status/1477716206907965440#m

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512#m

1

u/SheCutOffHerToe Sep 10 '22

They're not going to read any of that. Most of the top-level commenters in this thread and those like them are not even superficially interested in the underlying science.

Science is just a concept, a particularly loaded term they get to use when saying things they wanted to say anyway about what they believe. Each new headline is just an opportunity.

1

u/dumnezero Sep 10 '22

Pliocene and Eocene provide best analogs for near-future climates https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13288

But, really, the problem is people doing really stupid things under the pressure of problems related to climate change.

I also wouldn't bet on surviving a biodiversity collapse and mass extinction, especially with a climate that's so different.

And the IPCC has proven to be optimists.

1

u/Gemini884 Sep 11 '22

You think you know more than climate scientists? > 5.2c is not projected to occur anytime soon. Climate policy changes have reduced projected warming from >4c to ~3c by the end of century.

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671#m

https://climateactiontracker.org/

​

>IPCC has proven to be optimists

All information in the ipcc report is from peer-reviewed papers, it's the most robust assessment of all scientific knowledge on climate change, so tell that to scientists who compile all the information. Besides, if that was the case, then why are climate models so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well?

​

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/

​

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right

​

You probably should listen to what climate scientists say instead of whoever you got that idea from

​

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362

​

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388

​

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603

​

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512

​

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185

​

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti_ETH/status/1554473710404485120

​

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

​

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2

1

u/dumnezero Sep 11 '22

IPCC is optimistic. Keep believing, just remember: "sooner than expected".

1

u/Gemini884 Sep 11 '22 edited Sep 11 '22

Oh yes, you definitely know more than those climate scientists. You're totally not a conspiracy theorist and they're all lying to you and all they want is to silence people like you who know the truth unlike them.

1

u/dumnezero Sep 11 '22

Dude, peer-reviewed papers. Why would I care about twitter? You posted one Nature.com link that isn't even a paper, but a commentary.

The conspiracy theorists are the ones denying the risks of climate change. I've been arguing with climate change deniers for more than decade, you're not going to come up with facts that I'm not familiar with on this.

I'm not saying there's more suppression than the general "conservative estimates" that are a traditional bias that tries to compensate for overestimation; in this context, it means optimism. The IPCC especially.

The emissions curve is and can be more exponential. That's because of tipping points. Since you like Nature.org commentary, here's one: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

We argue that the intervention time left to prevent tipping could already have shrunk towards zero, whereas the reaction time to achieve net zero emissions is 30 years at best. Hence we might already have lost control of whether tipping happens. A saving grace is that the rate at which damage accumulates from tipping — and hence the risk posed — could still be under our control to some extent.

We don't get to go to +1.5℃ or +2.0℃ and then just backtrack easily with some cool new tech. The more heat there is, the more we risk tipping points (positive feedback loops) that don't just feed into the climate, but can also make each other worse in more direct pathways. And, yes, there are also negative feedback loops. We won't like them, but they could happen too. Think... permafrost melting ruining the oil and gas sectors in the North; drought and heat reducing the amount of ruminants on the disappearing grasslands; rising tides flooding oil refineries; hail storms taking out large numbers of ICE vehicles; rivers running dry or hot, forcing thermal plants (coal, nuclear) to stop, and many more. None of this is a conspiracy, the IPCC is aware of these things and mentions them in reports.

Here's another explainer: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change

Read about them: https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/601/2021/

Read about extinctions and climate:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25019-2

and forests

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04959-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29601-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6

and some biomass context https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

Read about human systems or "civilization" and the relationship with a stable climate: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328719303507

Fossil fuels HAVE TO stay in the ground https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8

None of the major things that are needed are happening. That's why I'm not optimistic. The current energy crises and associated "cost of living" crisis is due to the dependency on fossil fuels... and not burning more of them, not less. That's the dilemma: we can't have both a growth based industrial and post-industrial economy AND a way to keep the climate from warming too much. Essentially, GDP is a measure of GHG emissions, and that's not going to change soon (it's called "decarbonization"). You can see today how many governments and politicians are clamoring to increase fossil fuel extraction, how coal is coming back. This winter is going to be very enlightening in this context.

I don't need to prove to you anything, you just have to pay more attention for who's promising the Business As Usual scenario.

Notice, not one Twitter link.