[removed]

>The IPCC infamously fails to account for carbon cycle feedbacks and their associated tipping points when setting their own emissions targets.

Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports.

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 actual climate scientists say on the matter-

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

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/

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

​

There is no evidence for projected warming <3-4C of any tipping points that significantly change the warming trajectory. Read ipcc report and read what climate scientists say instead of speculating:

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/MichaelEMann/status/1495438146905026563

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1571146283582365697#m

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/2c-not-known-point-of-no-return-as-jonathan-franzen-claims-new-yorker/

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#tippingpoints

"Some people will look at this and go, ‘well, if we’re going to hit tipping points at 1.5°C, then it’s game over’. But we’re saying they would lock in some really unpleasant impacts for a very long time, but they don’t cause runaway global warming."- Quote from Dr. David Armstrong Mckay, the author of one of recent studies on the subject to Newscientist mag. here are explainers he's written before-

https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/04/01/climate-tipping-points-fact-check-series-introduction/ (introduction is a bit outdated and there are some estimates that were ruled out in past year's ipcc report afaik but articles themselves are more up to date)

&#x200B;

&gt;www.climaterealitycheck.net/download

David Spratt and Ian Dunlop- authors of this "report" are same people who have written the report which was panned by scientists who fact-checked it- https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/

As best as I can tell, "free sugar" is "more sugar than you would encounter naturally." For instance, fruit juices use way more fruits than you would normally eat in one sitting, whereas just plain old fruit isn't considered "free sugar." It's not incredibly clear to me either, though.

[removed]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

Absolutely, then they add salt to balance out the sweetness.

[deleted]

Or maybe we can just let young people have fun and eat free for a few years, then ship them out to biodynamic farms where they can work the soil by hand, utilizing no machinery or chemicals until death. The middle -aged can pull hand carts carrying produce to urban markets. Everyone has their ration cards and gets to eat, but labor is divided such that everyone gets a chance to have fun to the best of their ability in the pain-free years of life, and graduates to working closer to the land. When death comes it is usually closer to agricultural fields or in them, so less work needs to be done to move the bodies to the compost piles that fertilize the fields. In this way we can avoid directly eating people, but we would all still be cycled into food via soil inputs. If we did it without violence and guns, it would be more like the Smurfs than the Khmer Rouge.

>I'd think this would count as a motive for various food industries to intentionally use excessive fructose in various food products to manipulate people to buy excess food/drink against their will/better judgment.

It already is, I think. Fructose tastes much sweeter than the same amount of glucose, which is why so many fast-food products use high-fructose syrups. It is also known fructose does not induce satiety the way glucose does.

https://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/study-suggests-effect-fructose-brain-may-promote-overeating

[removed]

Shocking. This must have come as a total surprise.

It's worse than anticipated and happened sooner than expected.

Not all sedentary people are couch potatoes. The elderly can't move as well as those younger than them and medical issues can worsen it.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

Thanks, you're completely right! Very terribly sloppy work on my part. I corrected it, read: completely replaced it, with a comment that actually directly compares apples to apples

10% sugar intake sounds insanely high though. The question is how much normal sugar intake takes a toll on our bodies.

What’s the difference then between saying “free sugar” and just saying “sugar”

[deleted]

> I'm a bit dubious about this

What exactly are you dubious about? That the paper predicts lower sea level rise than previous models, or that either way the sea level rise will be enough to have serious consequences?

Your phrasing makes it seem like you're disagreeing with me, but I don't see which part you're disagreeing with.

> Now, it could be a matter of timing - it might take 1000 years or so for the full ice-sheet response - but it's not exactly reassuring.

There's a massive difference between "20m of sea level rise in 80 years" and "20m of sea level rise in 1,000 years".

In particular, my understanding is that paleographic studies are generally of the form "temperature went up 5C and sea level went up 20m over the course of 10ky", meaning sustained temperature increase led to large sea level rise. There's not really any hope of seeing temperatures 80 years from now back to pre-industrial levels, but IPCC scenarios like SSP1-2.6 see temperature starting to fall by then, meaning it could be back to pre-industrial levels within a century or two.

As a result, if a certain amount of sea level rise requires only 80 years of sustained temperature increase of 1.5-2C, we have little hope of avoiding that. By contrast, if that amount of sea level rise requires 1,000+ years of sustained temperature increase of 1.5-2C, there's quite good odds of avoiding some, most, or potentially even virtually all of that.

In general, the known ice melt tipping points take thousands of years. I extracted a list of those tipping points from a paper previously discussed on r/science, and the timescale for 10m+ of sea level rise looks to be about 2,000 years (mainly West Antarctic ice sheet and East Antarctic subglacial basins).

> Ie you need enough working adults to outnumber every other demographic

or corporations to pay their fair share of taxes

I am definitely one of those on the opposite side. I use it for my autoimmune pains, but the side effects are constant low-grade headache. And about twice a year, I still get a big one. I can not use anything but indica. The others, full migration potential. Sucks always being on the freak end of stuff that should improve life.