this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
131 points (89.7% liked)

World News

39165 readers
2540 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

ScienceAlert.com

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cuibono@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

...

gestures vaguely at everything

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Skimming through the cited paper, it looks like their conclusion is based less on a detailed model of the climate as much as a general property of dynamical systems and how plausible it is that current climate processes could result in a chaotic state.

What I’d like to see is if the more detailed models used in most climate forecasts are able to capture the sort of dynamics they describe. (Not predicting the outcome, obviously, but maybe predicting the circumstances in which a transition to a chaotic regime could occur.)

[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obviously a scholar. AND a gentleman.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not a bowler however.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We could feasibly blink out of existence in one quantum fluctuation, so I just try to enjoy this life while I can.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Start blinking

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It won't hurt. Or at least not for long. ;)

[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

What if we're already living inside a false vacuum decay? We're only the result of a random arrangement of matter in an infinite amount of time. It's similar to the infinite monkey theorem right?

[–] hyper@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] chillhelm@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Actually, no.

The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you'd read it you would have found the following paragraph:

Their results showed that we're not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.

Basically they are saying "this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system".

They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the gist.

but it's not helpful that they just: 'so you're saying there's a chance!?'

[–] Krono 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I prefer my doomerism to be vague.

Precise doomerism is just too depressing.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

We will all die of indeterminate causes.

[–] Additional_Prune@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This_is_fine_dog_meme

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And that's new/news exactly....how? And Why? I mean, that's been what the tipping points have been all about. Earth could end up like Mars, like Venus or some entirely different planet we haven't found yet. It could swing wildly from Mars to Venus as well... Chaos is all but a lazy definition of various states in this context. The Probabilities for that are also quite low, iMHO.

[–] dasgoat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your humble opinion being based on... what, exactly?

The rest of us aren't too smug to read the article and take interest in it

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this a real person you’re responding to? I swear these are some AI chat bot amalgamations. I refuse to believe that a large group of people think this way.

[–] dasgoat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're probably right... damn

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I hope I’m wrong ;/