> Take ocean deoxygenation: it happens locally due to fertiliser runoff
Two types, not one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation#Types_and_...
Two types, not one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation#Types_and_...
I wouldn’t claim I have knowledge that it’s not a problem, but I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations. Until then, I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm3468
Global decline in ocean memory over the 21st century
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-devastating-greenland-antarcti...
'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago
https://www.commondreams.org/news/ocean-warming-study
the planet has accumulated as much heat in the past 15 years as it did in the previous 45 years, the majority of the excess heat has been absorbed by the oceans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/oceans-h...
A technical chart in a chapter of the latest UN climate assessment laid out the unfathomable heat gain. Between 1971 and 2018, the ocean had gained 396 zettajoules of heat.
How much heat is that? Scientists have calculated it is the equivalent energy of more than 25bn Hiroshima atomic bombs. And that heat gain is accelerating.
A study in January found the ocean gained 10 ZJ more in 2022 than the year before – enough heat to boil 700m kettles every second.
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-climate-ocean-plankton-microbe...
Warming climate could turn ocean plankton microbes into carbon emitters
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330316398_How_fast_...
How fast are the oceans warming? - Observational records of ocean heat content show that ocean warming is accelerating
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/world/four-climate-charts...
Four alarming charts that show just how extreme the climate is right now
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-lev...
Antarctic sea ice levels dive in 'five-sigma event', as experts flag worsening consequences for planet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
Scientists detect sign that a crucial ocean current is near collapse
> I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-16/revisiting-the...
https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/y...
"I conducted a data update to Limits to Growth (LtG), best known from the 1972 bestseller that forecasted a scenario of global societal collapse occurring around the present time if humanity did not alter its priorities. Empirical data comparisons since then indicated that the world was still heading for collapse. ... I found that the scenarios aligned closely with observed global data, which is a testament to the LtG work done decades ago. The two scenarios aligning most closely indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, which puts into question the usability of continuous growth as humanity’s goal in the 21st century. Both scenarios also indicate subsequent declines, but only one—the scenario in which declines are caused by pollution, including greenhouse gas pollution—depicts a collapse pattern. The scenario with the smallest declines aligned least with empirical data, however, absolute differences were rarely big and sometimes insignificant. This suggests that it’s almost, but not yet, too late for society to change course."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332655753_Limits_Re...
"We unravel the arguments that have raged for forty years in its aftermath and explore more recent findings which relate to the original hypothesis. There is unsettling evidence that society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards. Detailed recent studies suggests that production of some key resources may only be decades away. Certain other limits to growth – less visible in the 1972 report – present equally pressing challenges to modern society. We highlight, in particular, recent work on our proximity to ‘planetary boundaries’ and illustrate this through the challenge of meeting the Paris Agreement on climate change. We also explore the economic challenge of a ‘secular stagnation’. If the Club of Rome is right, the next few decades are decisive."
> I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions
Ok :)
I see a lot of evidence that the planet has been/is warming, but still see lots of issues with the attribution / prediction / catastrophe papers. Take your KPMG report: it has lots of predictions of catastrophic trends, but cannot be used to make an actual prediction since "he LtG scenarios were thus not meant to produce point predictions, but rather to help us understand the behavior of systems in the world over time." "Although the steepness of a scenario’s decline cannot be used for predictive purposes (Meadows et al., 2004), it can be said that BAU2 shows a clear collapse pattern"
I believe the Lakatosian solution to the demarcation problem is best: judge a scientific programme by its progressiveness over time. Evidence of a progressive programme comes about through repeated confirmation of theory against evidence without adding arbitrary auxilliary hypothesis. I worry that some corners of climate change science are degenerate: when a model doesn't match predictions there is always an explanation using an auxillary hypothesis ("there are less fires than we predicted, but we now use a different metric. And our new metric is getting worse!!", "the record temps didn't appear in our model because we didn't include X, but will come eventually", "the coral didn't die because Y, but will die eventually", "the ice caps haven't melted yet because Z, but will eventually"). I'm not saying these auxillary hypothesis are necessarily wrong, just that they are used as excuses for wrong predictions. This years record heat was an opportunity for climate scientists to say: "see! We predicted this in 99% of our models, now you should trust us", instead we got "our models missed this, but because we didn't include X,Y,Z; so you should still trust the models." Even worse X,Y,Z have been known about for years so either the modeller thought they weren't important and was wrong, or thought they were important but didn't include the. Both scenarios worry me and feed my skepticism.