Comments
umassmza t1_j6mpfbv wrote
This is why fines and carbon credits are stupidity. Governments need to completely shut down anyone not in compliance. The idea of taxing people into emitting less carbon is futile
Cubusphere t1_j6mu487 wrote
It's always "sooner than expected" because scientists are incentivised to publish best-case scenarios. I wonder why...
fungussa OP t1_j6mun0n wrote
Go on, tell us more about your conspiracy theory.
fungussa OP t1_j6muror wrote
Pigouvian taxes do work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax
thumperlee t1_j6muv9j wrote
If the fines and taxes were more than just a business expense to be written off it would be more effective.
Cubusphere t1_j6muzy8 wrote
Hopium, less funds for undesired results, missing big picture and trying to condense complex systems too far.
It's a well known pattern, no conspiracy.
fungussa OP t1_j6mvilz wrote
Are you saying that climate scientists are are underplaying the severity of climate risks?
Cubusphere t1_j6mwefg wrote
Often, yes. When your findings are so gloomy that "we might as well give up" becomes an expected response, you're going to do best-case followed by "this is how we can still turn this around". The last part is swiftly ignored, rinse and repeat.
fungussa OP t1_j6mxli8 wrote
That doesn't make sense, as the article is about research showing that threshold may be crossed earlier. It's doing the opposite of downplaying risks.
Cubusphere t1_j6mxw3d wrote
Yes, I was pointing out why often things seem to happen/are predicted "earlier than expected", because they were forecast best-case before. Sorry, I was not clear about that at all, I see now.
Coquinha_gelada_hm t1_j6n13ju wrote
we already have a lot of scenarios studied and made by humans. We don't know the data they fed this A.I, so, i will stick with humans on this one.
fungussa OP t1_j6n1flz wrote
AI is already exceeding expert capability of humans in many fields. So do you think there's a law that humans will always be superior?
throwaway4abetterday t1_j6n30ol wrote
No rule, just a fact. At least that's what you'd say if we asked the same of you about this AI when you know damn well the things get results wrong all the time.
TheeBiscuitMan t1_j6n3zmj wrote
Lol futile? Its called markets they work
fungussa OP t1_j6n45n5 wrote
You clearly haven't been watching the news,
Coquinha_gelada_hm t1_j6n5kff wrote
and you're givind too much credit to a bunch of ifs and elses. A.I learns from things made by humans, btw. they also can't learn like humans. They need alot of data and a lot of trainning to copy humans. And i'm saying this as a CS major.
fungussa OP t1_j6n6b13 wrote
> A.I learn from things made by humans
Not necessarily.
Satellite data, temperature data, ocean salinity, wind speeds etc are not 'things made by humans'.
Remarkable-Way4986 t1_j6n73gh wrote
AI doesn't seem to come up with much new. It just studies what people have already come up with, including errors and bias. Then mashes it all together
Coquinha_gelada_hm t1_j6na9q4 wrote
the satellites, sensors, etc... stuff made by humans.
fungussa OP t1_j6nbcnk wrote
That's ridiculous, those are measurements based on natural phenomena and laws.
fungussa OP t1_j6ndd7n wrote
Really?? AI is being used to find novel materials in material science to novel medicines and research in physics. We're now also seeing it with AI art and ChatGPT.
cvviic t1_j6ndvqg wrote
AI is currently only good with an in godly amount of real data. We have no data on a runaway green house effect on earth. How is the AI supposed to accurately model that?
Remarkable-Way4986 t1_j6ney29 wrote
Theoretical and unproven from what scientists have already suggested should be out there
cvviic t1_j6nfiq4 wrote
It’s finding novel materials By them inputting measurements from every material we currently have. Plus inputs on things we already know. Like phase points, shear strength, all their forces. With out a lot accurate data. The AI could make any guess.
Global warming data is literally all speculative as it hasn’t happened yet. I would suggest you start treating AI like a tool that needs calibration. Some times that tool isn’t/can’t be calibrated for the job
fungussa OP t1_j6ni8w8 wrote
Seriously, why are you just making things up??
> AI Designs Quantum Physics Experiments beyond What Any Human Has Conceived - Originally built to speed up calculations, a machine-learning system is now making shocking progress at the frontiers of experimental quantum physics
fungussa OP t1_j6nitve wrote
You're just making things up.
> AI Designs Quantum Physics Experiments beyond What Any Human Has Conceived - Originally built to speed up calculations, a machine-learning system is now making shocking progress at the frontiers of experimental quantum physics
> Global warming data is literally all speculative as it hasn’t
What?? Satellites have been measuring less radiation escaping the upper atmosphere then is entering it, and they measuring increased radiation abdorption in the bands in which CO2 absorbs radiation.
There's no point in trying to deny basic physics and chemistry.
alertthenorris t1_j6npnwe wrote
Sure, and AI also said that WW3 started in november 2023.
czk_21 t1_j6nvaow wrote
how dire really?, quick warming is BAD for sure but for comparison in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum global temperature was 5-8 C degrees higher than today and it was no armageddon, temperature 2 degrees higher wont be either
fungussa OP t1_j6nzwzi wrote
Lol, what? The PETM caused a major disruption to global ecosystems and had a severe impact on ocean chemistry and marine life, where approx two thirds of marine species went extinct. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2003197117
At a mere +2C there'll be multiple, simultaneous breadbasket failures, and at +4C large scale agriculture will largely collapse.
cvviic t1_j6o601e wrote
Let me preface this with saying global warming is a thing. My problem is this god like ideologies people are building around AI.
Ok the global warming not having data was a poor use of words on my end. I meant we don’t have data on a runaway green house affect. The physics may state that at “this” specific point we can’t turn it around. The problem is “this” point can’t have real world data. Because we have never seen the world hitting “this” point. The world has to many variables to claim your current measured and mathematically devised outcomes of atomic interactions Covers them all. And with out that hard data to feed into an AI it will make erroneous calculations.
The link you sent only hardens my point of AI using Hard data to make predictions. Idk if you brush up on where we are in quantum physics. But their aren’t to many variables. Yes there is things we don’t understand. But by MEASURING them we know there are mathematically probable out comes depending on only a few variables. It’s all the hard data gathered from places like the LHC that makes AI powerful in this situation. Honestly the only inputs for developing novel materials would be the number of protons, neutrons, electrons, and all of there known forces. With that an AI could easily make new materials.
AI is Amazing at pattern recognition and extrapolates up from the patterns it’s seen in previous data. With out a closed system of all know variables AI can and will make mistakes.
fungussa OP t1_j6o7vbg wrote
Science says that it's not likely that there will be a runaway greenhouse effect, however, the Earth could enter a hot-house state, losing all polar ice with very high sea level rise.
You're not entirely coherent, but I think English is not your first language.
That being said, you don't know much about climate change nor about AI.
Google DeepMind is one of the world's leading AI research labs, and it will be using AI to model weather and climate (it's been one of DeepMind's primary goals, to use AI to understand and find solutions to climate change).
https://analyticsindiamag.com/deepminds-next-project-weather-climate-modelling/
Lighting t1_j6oc31u wrote
positive feedback loop leads to exponential growth. Thanks to funding by folks like Koch, people don't trust scientists anymore.
cvviic t1_j6ochuj wrote
Have deep mind give you the temperature and humidity of your county 3 months from know. Then tell me when that time comes if it is 100% accurate. I’m trying to help you see that you are the one who doesn’t understand how AI works.
I definitely lack knowledge on climate change. But I have a pretty firm understanding of AI.
fungussa OP t1_j6odnit wrote
I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.
Helasri t1_j6p0864 wrote
The AI knows smth we dont .. haha
throwaway4abetterday t1_j6p1q3b wrote
That's exactly the problem with it.
AndyTheSane t1_j6p5s5q wrote
Yeah, we wouldn't even notice 27m of sea level rise, or the complete breakdown of modern agriculture...
freeman_joe t1_j6p9758 wrote
If everyone in world doesn’t have basic needs met market doesn’t work.
Unusual-Diver-8335 t1_j6paunn wrote
"Critical" is not dramatic enough word, how do you intend to keep people anxious about the problem they have almost no power to prevent using such weak words?
Next time go with "terrifying" or "horrifying" to keep people properly depressed.
And an image if burning planet of course, because that's what happens when temps rise 1.5C
Unusual-Diver-8335 t1_j6pbgn6 wrote
Compliance with what
Unusual-Diver-8335 t1_j6pc97z wrote
>two thirds of marine species went extinct
over the course of ~1,000 years
Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Unusual-Diver-8335 t1_j6pcovb wrote
>Warming of 2 °C will lead to an average global ocean rise of 20 cm, but more than 90% of coastal areas will experience greater rises. If warming continues above 2 °C, then, by 2100, sea level will be rising faster than at any time during human civilization, and 80% of the global coastline is expected to exceed the 95th percentile upper limit of 1.8 m for mean global ocean sea level rise.
>
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1605312113
Franklin_le_Tanklin t1_j6phpg5 wrote
Mm. And all of the human ones have turned out to be wrong so far and have underestimated the effects.
pete_68 t1_j6pj18v wrote
We have mountains and mountains of climate data. Modern and ancient. And we do have data on runaway greenhouse effects. This isn't the Earths' first rodeo. We have tons of data on past major climate changes.
pete_68 t1_j6pj8jp wrote
Yeah, we've done such a bang-up job so far. How many articles have I read in the past year where climate change has turned out to be worse than what scientists predicted? Maybe 100. For a while it seemed like there were 1 or 2 a day. This is worse than we expected, that's worse than we expected.
I'm going to go with the AI models 'cause the humans have totally fucked it up.
fungussa OP t1_j6mmiao wrote
SS: The world could reach 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels in the next decade and hit 2 degrees by mid-century, even with significant global efforts to curb pollution, according to a new study using artificial intelligence. The study used artificial neural networks trained on climate models and historical temperature observations. In all three scenarios, scientists estimated that the world would hit 1.5 degrees of warming by 2033-2035. There is an 80% probability that 2 degrees warming will be reached before 2065, even if net-zero emissions are reached, but if emissions remain high, a 50% probability of reaching 2 degrees before 2050. The use of machine learning in climate science is increasing.