"Of over 13,000 islands examined, approximately 12% experienced significant shifts in shoreline positions. The total shoreline length of these islands approaches 200,000 km, with 7.57% showing signs of landward erosion and 6.05% expanding seaward. Human activities, particularly reclamation and land filling, were identified as primary drivers of local shoreline transformations, while natural factors have a comparatively minor impact. "
It's very likely that we're already beyond some of the tipping points, and others are very close[0]. We're basically going into the mitigation phase now by my understanding.
If we lower the CO2 levels (carbon sequestering) and cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight (SO2 injection in the stratosphere), I'm sure these alleged tipping points will be tipped back again, given some time.
It's good to be aware that doom sells, and the incentive to publish doom predictions for the money they make is very high. Of course, they can still be true...
I don't get the reason for skepticism, when this is coming from scientists who've been studying the field for many years, and have been making predictions that have been coming true.
It's like an avalanche. After it starts you can't stop it or get all that snow back on the mountain; it has to get to level ground, melt (if it gets warm enough) and go through an entire cycle that takes time. So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself.
I don't see it as doom, just something inevitable, which we helped to cause. And it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money, in every instance, as acceptance would be bad for business.
> Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study.
I count to 3 maybes only there:
1. tipping points "could be triggered by much lower temperatures"
2. "some tipping points potentially already reached"
3. "according to a new study"
Number 1 and 2 says that this may possibly happen, not that it will!
Number 3 is the worst. Many - probably most - new studies with unexpected results turn out to be wrong, as the Replication Crisis has painfully taught us. They also get the most press, because "new study confirms what we thought" stories don't go viral.
> it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money
That's absolutely not true in science or publishing. The most sensational results get the most attention and grants and ad dollars.
Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study.
In English as a first language that's an assertion that
* Climate tipping points [...] could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought
implying that they are real and will hapen at some threshold but there is now evidence or a model that suggets the thresholds may be lower than once thought.
The incorrect interpretation by BurningFrog above was that
> that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will!
whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed.
The only "maybe" was a suspicion that these thresholds could be even lower than thought and a Rubicon may have been crossed already - but there was zero uncertainity expressed wrt existence and potential to be crossed.
> the incorrect interpretation by BurningFrog above was that
>> that this [ Climate tipping points ] may possibly happen, not that it will!
> whereas the text (again, correct or not) was definite that Climate tipping points are real and will happen when thresholds are crossed.
It will happen IF thresholds are crossed. And crucially, we don't know where the thresholds are. So it could happen.
"The Empire State Building WILL fall over WHEN it tips beyond some threshold" is not saying that it will fall over, means that it could fall over. And yes, also in this case the threshold is real.
We know that critical parameters are climbing, we know that (for example) CO2 sequestration is not happening nor planned to occur at a scale that matches the century of industry that put the CO2 out there.
It's a physical fact that once thresholds are reached then irreversible problems occur.
> The Empire State Building WILL fall over WHEN it tips beyond some threshold
Not a good example as the Empire State Building isn't tipping.
The insulation in the atmospheres is (by contrast) increasing.
The specific skepticism expressed in BurningFrog comment above based on an incorrect reading of the text was unwarrented, a more geneneral dbate about the specifics of models, etc. is still in play.
> Not a good example as the Empire State Building isn't tipping.
Sorry but I have to insist: the tipping points of the ESB are real, it will fall over if it leans above a certain threshold, and the threshold could be lower than we think.
This statement is trivially true and yet it tells you nothing about the current state of the ESB.
Note: I am not saying that I don't believe climate change is happening, or that we should not be worried about it, or even that tipping points are a fiction. But I agree with BurningFrog that these statements are full of hypotheticals and that they seem to say more than they actually do- exactly like the statement about the ESB. There is an obvious incentive for publishing results that attract attention and nothing attracts attention more than prophecies of doom; this is in addition to the normal publication bias of non-neutral results. We have a replication crisis in actual experimental disciplines- where the papers detail what experiments were made and how to replicate them; but much of climate science is a speculative science that operates on models and extrapolations. And, differently from say, medicine, there is an actual political side to these results that muddies things even more- we want to see results that confirm our current opinion. This should makes us doubly careful on the topic.
> So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself.
Humanity would be better off living at the bottom of the ocean than on any other planet; and to think that climate change could make earth less hospitable than any other planet is just absurd. So this is an incredibly naive statement.
Yes agreed. There is no chance that humans are completely wiped out. We, or our ancestors, by definition have survived until today though multiple actual ice ages. We've survived though massive floods and glaciers and who knows what else.
On top of that, the closer we get to doomsday the more people will care.
I don't know where I heard it, but there's a saying that "capitalism can solve anything it just waits until the last minute".
That when the time comes enough money and resources will be poured into the solutions(s) that we can fix it.
When is that time? When profits are threatened and our continued way of existence.
This is simply fantasy. Sequestering carbon mechanically is an energy losing process. It is also inefficient.
If we burned oil in year 2,000 at (generously) 50% efficiency, it will cost us 4X more in year 2040 to sequester it at 50% (very generous) efficiency.
On the face of it, we would need a sequestering industry that is 4X bigger than the oil industry, and it will be just losing money. Politically, it’s just not going to happen.
Natural sequestration (I.e. tree planting) is not enough by a very large margin (like over 10x)
Restoring CO₂ levels will use plenty of money and energy, however it's done. It can still be very much worth doing!
I don't believe much in tree planting, since it uses up huge areas of the planet forever.
The best way is to separate out CO2 from the atmosphere and pump it into underground cavities. This is the just reversing natural gas extraction, which means it's well established tech. Aside from the separating CO2 part, but that's being worked on.
In a decade or three I expect solar powered machines like this slowly but surely turning the atmosphere back to normal.
I would assume that "given some time" outlasts the median life expectancy of humans. If it ever happeens. Like others said it's a chaotic system in many ways, not as if you can predict more than a few decades.
Given this, after "giving it some time" a lot of people would be dead as a direct consequence of it not been given enough time.
And in 1000 years it will be different again. What’s your point? The fact it has and will always change doesn’t change anything about what’s happening now.
We can choose to mitigate the change or make it worse for ourselves.
