|
Predicting the socio-political fallout of any amount of warming is really difficult because humans are really difficult to predict. If you want something that's probably realistic, the Age of Consequences paper the U.S. Military put out a while ago is worth a look.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You could tell me what they are actually saying. You are literally taking your own personal interpretation of what is being said and presenting it as fact. And getting called out on it, again. Have you ever read a James Hansen paper? https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change Great video here that kind of goes over his perspective but he's been saying these sorts of things for years. James Hansen in 2012 posted:That is the equivalent of what we face now. Yet, we dither, taking no action to divert the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. If we had started in 2005, it would have required emission reductions of three percent per year to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate this century. If we start next year, it is six percent per year. If we wait 10 years, it is 15 percent per year -- extremely difficult and expensive, perhaps impossible. But we aren't even starting. I totally agree with what he's saying here, and you're right, I'm more pessimistic than he is, but if the worst criticism you can make of me is that I'm too pessimistic so be it. I'll be waiting for someone to provide a realistic alternative scenario. Penisaurus Sex posted:Predicting the socio-political fallout of any amount of warming is really difficult because humans are really difficult to predict. Not if you take a step back and view us as animals. Ask a biologist what they think about how hard it is to predict what's going to happen when a species overshoots it's population and then destroys the habitat it relies on. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:2) Reduced consumption (e.g., meat products, cheap manufacturing of disposable goods) Which is why I laud this week's binding treaty on HFCs, as it does both these things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
@NewForumSoftware The quote you have of James Hansen, its literally just repeating the same message as was issued in the joint statement of the academy of sciences. quote:Yet, we dither, taking no action to divert the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. quote:Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future. Literally, exactly the same message. The part about, "acting now or its too late", is a product of your imagination. quote:but if the worst criticism you can make of me is that I'm too pessimistic so be it No. My worst criticism is that you present your opinion as being supported by scientific fact when its not. I have no issue with you being pessimistic. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The part about, "acting now or its too late", is a product of your imagination. Alright so completely drop that line. Does it change anything that I've said? No. Look you're right, I'm not a scientist, I'm posting on an internet forum. These are my ideas. I will not be correct 100% of the time nor will I not slip and use the wrong words like "or its too late" instead of "before its too late" and I understand those words mean different things. But to pretend like that somehow invalidates my argument while yours is "Fusion Power?" is a joke. Actually engage honestly if you want to have a discussion, do you think there's a possible way to prevent a 4C+ raise, or not? What does it look like?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
@BattleMoose Can't say I think much of your plan for solving AGC using fusion
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's the only outcome if nothing changes 20 years ago, and it didn't. So, here we are. Unless you've got some evidence that suggest otherwise I'm going to go ahead and assume that the Co2 we've already put into the atmosphere will continue to warm the planet which will put us over 2C for a sustained period of time, causing the myriad of feedback loops we have scientific evidence for that are the basis for the 2C target in the first place. That we'll most likely overshoot 2C isn't really controversial at this point, and neither is the existence of positive feedback loops. So you're right that far. But saying "past 2C we trigger enough positive feedbacks that are so certain, fast acting, and strong that within decades industrial civilization can definitely no longer exist" is a fringe position. NewForumSoftware posted:I totally agree with what he's saying here, and you're right, I'm more pessimistic than he is, but if the worst criticism you can make of me is that I'm too pessimistic so be it. I'll be waiting for someone to provide a realistic alternative scenario. The "realistic alternative scenario" is that your self admitted pessimism doesn't affect how the climate system (or industrial civilization) actually functions - as in, it probably doesn't work the way your pessimism lets you believe. It probably will not be as bad as you think. It could be, but that's a low probability scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:No. My worst criticism is that you present your opinion as being supported by scientific fact when its not. I have no issue with you being pessimistic. I'm sorry if the ideas I'm talking about are supported by various scientific publications I've read and don't come verbatim out of one of them. If you don't think there's a scientific basis for what I'm saying you're full of poo poo. If you want to play pedant and pick apart my arguments without actually addressing them feel free, but don't pretend like you're doing anything but wasting space in the thread. Prolonged Priapism posted:That we'll most likely overshoot 2C isn't really controversial at this point, and neither is the existence of positive feedback loops. So you're right that far. But saying "past 2C we trigger enough positive feedbacks that are so certain, fast acting, and strong that within decades industrial civilization can definitely no longer exist" is a fringe position. Yes, I will admit that. I'm basing that view pretty much entirely on the fact that we are continuously hearing about how things are accelerating, worse than we expected, and business as usual is also worse than we expected. Eventually you have to put together the dots. Whether that's a leap worth being so sure about is a valid discussion, but I don't really see ANYONE putting forth that idea. Which is worrysome. quote:The "realistic alternative scenario" is that your self admitted pessimism doesn't affect how the climate system (or industrial civilization) actually functions - as in, it probably doesn't work the way your pessimism lets you believe. It probably will not be as bad as you think. It could be, but that's a low probability scenario. I mean I agree with you up until you say it's a "low probability scenario". I really feel like that's an opinion statement at this point and there's compelling enough evidence to make an argument either way and still have it be based scientifically. I literally haven't even heard an alternative scenario that even remotely makes sense, until then it's hard for me to even accept they exist. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
It might just be that i don't read enough scientific papers but it doesn't sound like these solutions have any political will behind them whatsoever. I mean, I'm sure you guys have fully detailed plans worked out that are about to be implemented ASAP but it doesn't seem like depopulating or complete civilization reorganization is happening right now. Is there a major flagship institution or international body that has one or both of these plans, backed up by science from multiple disciplines, that you could point me to? Preferably one that explicitly states what you guys are saying about depopulation and returning to a decentralized agrarian society?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Actually engage honestly if you want to have a discussion, You misrepresent the science and the scientific fact to support your opinions. There is zero capacity to have a rational discussion with you until you stop doing this. That fusion power comment was pure speculation on my part on what the future might or could hold. You are completely taking the wrong message from that. Fusion power really does have the capacity to totally revolutionize our energy grid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm sorry if the ideas I'm talking about are supported by various scientific publications I've read and don't come verbatim out of one of them. If you don't think there's a scientific basis for what I'm saying you're full of poo poo. If you want to play pedant and pick apart my arguments without actually addressing them feel free, but don't pretend like you're doing anything but wasting space in the thread. If it's actually as hopeless as you portray, this thread is nothing but wasted space.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm sorry if the ideas I'm talking about are supported by various scientific publications I've read and don't come verbatim out of one of them. If you don't think there's a scientific basis for what I'm saying you're full of poo poo. If you want to play pedant and pick apart my arguments without actually addressing them feel free, but don't pretend like you're doing anything but wasting space in the thread. Except you're taking something scientific and stretching into something it isn't. Over and over again. You make specific claims and declare the science backs you, but when we ask for the science you reply "well I just made reasonable extrapolations." gently caress you that's not how science works. You don't get to just draw in your own dots at the end of the chart and pretend it is science based. Even if you swear it matches the trend line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You misrepresent the science and the scientific fact to support your opinions. There is zero capacity to have a rational discussion with you until you stop doing this. Sure it does and we should definitely pursue it. But I think saying we have enough time to pursue it and implement it on a large scale sort of undersells the immediacy of the problem we're dealing with here. I'm not saying society will collapse necessarily, because it doesn't have to. All you need is one major political setback and you lose your moonshot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:To stop the collapse of industrialized civilization? To stop 4C of warming? Nothing. The "collapse of industrialized civilization," unless you're using that phrase in an extremely strange way, is not something that's likely to happen even at 4C warming. Keep in mind that we aren't even talking about a predicted overall reduction in global food production until we hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 3C. Localized food production at lower and mid latitude, yes, but crop productivity at higher latitudes will increase. In other words, rich societies are still going to find a way to feed their population and industrial farming is probably going to be even more important than it is now. Poor societies, especially in the global south, are going to be completely hosed by this. Localized food production isn't going to be a solution because it'll actually be more difficult as we lose arable farmland. Your entire thesis seems to be predicated on the idea that everyone will be forced into subsistence farming just to stay alive and that will in turn lead to a collapse of industry, but there's absolutely no support for that and it's pretty much the complete opposite of what's likely to happen as areas that are now considered remote and unusable become viable for food production. Like, a huge part of the issue for poorer regions of the world is that localized food production will become nearly impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You misrepresent the science and the scientific fact to support your opinions. There is zero capacity to have a rational discussion with you until you stop doing this. Trabisnikof posted:Except you're taking something scientific and stretching into something it isn't. Over and over again. You make specific claims and declare the science backs you, but we ask for the science you reply "well I just made reasonable extrapolations." gently caress you that's not how science works. Do you two understand that I'm not a scientist? I've posted more articles than either of you in this thread and I'm sorry I don't have one I can point to that says "here is my manifesto in scientific paper form". How science works is irrelevant, this is a forum post. Salt Fish posted:If it's actually as hopeless as you portray, this thread is nothing but wasted space. I disagree, I think there are real steps we can take to mitigate the amount of suffering coming over the next few decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:But I think saying we have enough time to pursue it and implement it on a large scale sort of undersells the immediacy of the problem we're dealing with here. I'm not saying society will collapse necessarily, because it doesn't have to. All you need is one major political setback and you lose your moonshot. Quoting myself because an important part of what I wrote got completely missed, because this is the internet. BattleMoose posted:drat this thread got doomy and gloomy overnight. Let me offer a potential way where not everything gets totally hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Given that the HFC treaty accounts for mitigating a 0.1C (remember not actually reducing temperatures but avoiding an increase), we need 60 treaties of this magnitude to avoid a +6C scenario. And looking at how Kyoto failed, I'm not expecting this to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Keep in mind that we aren't even talking about a predicted overall reduction in global food production until we hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 3C. Localized food production at lower and mid latitude, yes, but crop productivity at higher latitudes will increase. In other words, rich societies are still going to find a way to feed their population and industrial farming is probably going to be even more important than it is now. Poor societies, especially in the global south, are going to be completely hosed by this. Localized food production isn't going to be a solution because it'll actually be more difficult as we lose arable farmland. It's actually not as simple as that, although it's a common misconception. Warming will not suddenly create arable land at the northern latitudes. What plants need isn't the correct average temperature, but a stable climate. And no climate is looking to be "stable" enough to support the sort of industrialized agriculture we see today. quote:Your entire thesis seems to be predicated on the idea that everyone will be forced into subsistence farming just to stay alive and that will in turn lead to a collapse of industry, but there's absolutely no support for that and it's pretty much the complete opposite of what's likely to happen as areas that are now considered remote and unusable become viable for food production. Like, a huge part of the issue for poorer regions of the world is that localized food production will become nearly impossible. No my entire thesis is predicated on the idea that collective action to prevent catastrophic and abrupt climate change is impossible at this point. I fully believe we are headed for the territory of unknown unknowns and that everything we know about how civilizations collapse leads me to conclude that there's absolutely no way we avoid it. I don't think we're looking at subsistence farming in 50 years, but a series of brutal and quick reductions in standard of living until we reach some sort of stable baseline. Which is exactly what the collapse of civilization looks like (civilizations don't collapse overnight) That's what we should be planning for, not saving the civilization we know today. The things we are holding on to so desperately in an attempt to save are blinding us from dealing with the real problems we're going to be facing in 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Quoting myself because an important part of what I wrote got completely missed, because this is the internet. Fair enough, I'll stop giving you poo poo about it  Fusion power is a legit wildcard though, I'm not entirely sure it would "fix" Climate Change but it would assuredly introduce its own set of unknown unknowns that will probably benefit humanity as opposed to making things worse, at least in the short run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Hope and optimism are good things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:Hope and optimism are good things. All depends on the context my friend. Hope can be very dangerous, it's just a projection of what you want the future to be on to reality. There's certainly a time and place, but I'm not sure it's for when we're discussing the impacts of international treaties as they relate to global warming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:All depends on the context my friend. Hope can be very dangerous, it's just a projection of what you want the future to be on to reality. There's certainly a time and place, but I'm not sure it's for when we're discussing the impacts of international treaties as they relate to global warming. We're just people posting on the internet. It's fine to want to have a more realistic view of things, but I don't see anything wrong with being hopeful. As long as you know it isn't a realistic outcome. My pet hope is that we end up with space farmers and I finally get to go to space. Almost definitely not going to happen, but it makes me sleep easier than worrying about whether it's +2C that dooms us or +3C.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:My pet hope is that we end up with space farmers and I finally get to go to space. If we do go extinct our biggest fuckup by far will be effectively abandoning space exploration after the space race ended. Maybe it's just 80s kids but gently caress it if being an astronaut was not the coolest poo poo possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
I remember being 8 and thinking we'd colonize the moon in my lifetime and how rad that would be. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's actually not as simple as that, although it's a common misconception. Warming will not suddenly create arable land at the northern latitudes. What plants need isn't the correct average temperature, but a stable climate. And no climate is looking to be "stable" enough to support the sort of industrialized agriculture we see today. A common misconception held by the majority of experts in the field who actually write on the subject? Like, I have no idea how to respond to this. I'm not an expert. All I can do is source studies by experts on the effects of climate change on agriculture, but here you are dismissing those conclusions in advance. We aren't going to stop large scale farming in the first world because we aren't going to lose 100% of usable land and changes to the climate aren't going to happen as abruptly as you seem to think they are. We aren't going to wake up one morning and realize that we've suddenly lost the Midwest. quote:Which is exactly what the collapse of civilization looks like (civilizations don't collapse overnight) That's what we should be planning for, not saving the civilization we know today. The things we are holding on to so desperately in an attempt to save are blinding us from dealing with the real problems we're going to be facing in 20 years. No offense intended, but it's starting to feel to me like you're viewing this as a problem of morality and projecting out to a simpler, less industrial future that you want to happen. You really haven't described any mechanism by which technological civilization is likely to collapse. Even if we were somehow reduced to a handful of urban areas clinging to the last vestiges of good land, we would still make use of industrial agriculture and we would still have a technological, industrial civilization. We aren't going to give up modern industrial advancements, no matter how bad things get, because they're simply more efficient than doing things any other way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:A common misconception held by the majority of experts in the field who actually write on the subject? The common misconception is this: quote:Localized food production at lower and mid latitude, yes, but crop productivity at higher latitudes will increase. In other words, rich societies are still going to find a way to feed their population and industrial farming is probably going to be even more important than it is now. Poor societies, especially in the global south, are going to be completely hosed by this. We're looking at a severe net loss with any research I've seen. Beyond that, what exactly do you think the global south is going to do when the countries they've lived in for millenia become unihabitable due to no action of their own? America is one of the few countries that this isn't a pressing problem today (but I assure you that Mexico is quite vulnerable to climate change and you could easily see mass migrations) but in Europe they are already seeing refugees begin to pour in. What happens when it's entire countries of people? Are we going to just kill everyone at the border? The idea that the global south will die quietly while developed countries just get on doing their thing seems a bit shortsighted. Basically, the "In other words" doesn't follow the first statement, which is factually true but misleading. quote:No offense intended, but it's starting to feel to me like you're viewing this as a problem of morality and projecting out to a simpler, less industrial future that you want to happen. You really haven't described any mechanism by which technological civilization is likely to collapse. Even if we were somehow reduced to a handful of urban areas clinging to the last vestiges of good land, we would still make use of industrial agriculture and we would still have a technological, industrial civilization. We aren't going to give up modern industrial advancements, no matter how bad things get, because they're simply more efficient than doing things any other way. I don't view this as a return to primitivism, which I mean, really is the worst case scenario. The collapse of industrial civilization is a process that will undoubtedly take centuries to complete, and will involve a host of "steady states" that we get to only before we realize the ground is taken out from underneath us again and again. I don't know where it stabilizes, it's really unclear once we go past 3-4C+ what is going to happen but based on the best science we have today, the obvious conclusion is that it's going to be worse than anything we've ever seen. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Maybe this is a good time to introduce an idea I've been kicking around for a while. This discussion sort of sucks right now because different people are taking different outcomes (in say 2100) as their "baseline," and then reasoning from there: "we're hosed" vs "it'll be bad but it could be worse, don't give up" vs whatever other spread of optimistic or pessimistic views. Without exposing the baseline assumptions it's a lot of talking past one another. What we need is a good analysis on the spread of outcomes - how likely different classes of future are, and what those futures look like. Of course it's all very fuzzy and subject to change, but it's possible to imagine a discussion anchored in this way. There are IPCC projections of raw temperature averages, rainfall averages, etc. What I wish existed was a set of coherent "future snapshots" - a lightly fleshed out projection of what 2100 looks like with exactly 4.3C warming, such and such rainfall patterns, such and such sea level rise, and so on. A specific future, with a specific imagined future situation for humanity (or a given region). Of course there's nearly no scientific value in such an exercise, but it would give people something to grab on to mentally - "if it goes like this, then maybe this is what life would be like in that world." It's basically just lightly informed sci fi. Like this, (four illustrations of what the future of the oceans might look like: one very grim, one somewhat grim, one positive, one fantastic, with short stories to accompany them). But focused more on life on land. What I'd propose is a large number of these projections (at least 100), biased in their specific details by the actual (assigned or calculated or modeled) probability of that scenario occurring. So there'd be lots of case studies done with the predicted median warming. And maybe only one or two scenarios at the extreme low or high ends. Imagine two illustrations, side by side. "Green and white Ecotopia, with architecture and solar panels by Apple Inc" (the positive future where we do everything right) vs "Mordor landscape with scorched trees and shells of buildings" (the worst case scenario if we do nothing). And now imagine the 200 illustrations in between, in a Gaussian distribution of good or badness. Middle of the road scenarios that differ in their specific details would be the majority, tapering and shading towards just one or two outlandish utopias or dystopias at either end, several standard deviations from the mean. The value of any one projection is basically nil - just a thought experiment, a single model run. But in the ensemble, you'd have a somewhat properly weighted idea of the range of outcomes. A gestalt of the future. Not just a black and white best case vs worst case. I'd imagine it existing as a big book, with one big landscape illustration on each spread, and a little blurb of story about the specific future depicted. You could have plenty of variety in the settings (urban, coutnryside, coast, inland, etc) and you could choose the settings to showcase something particular to that future - "ah, here's a +2 sigma Florida coast in 2100 - notice the big upgraded launch pads from the old Mars missions, and see how far under water they are!" or "Here's the very unlikely -4 sigma Reno Nevada - see how rich and prosperous it is - note the arcology." And a few hundred others. Maybe all around the world, maybe just around the USA. Or it could be a website that randomly selects an image to show you - as you click through, even if you only saw a few, statistically you'd get roughly the right picture. What do ya'll think? If this existed, would it be useful? Interesting? Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Not really. Labeling a bunch of scenarios from worst to best seems pointless since every scientific forecast dating back to the 70s has had to be revised for the worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:What do ya'll think? If this existed, would it be useful? Interesting? It does exist, its called CMIP. http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ We are currently in the 5th iteration, as models are getting more advanced and such. http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/ Let me quickly explain what it is. CMIP is a defined structured manner so that each Global Climate Model (There are about 30 of them) are starting with exactly the same assumptions and initial conditions and are run from 1960-2100. The historical runs are super important because we can compare the model outputs to what actually happened so we can evaluate the skill of the models. It also allows for looking at differences between essentially "before climate change" and "after climate change". Often focus is on what changed rather than explicit statements of what is. Ensemble means are typically used as our best "guesses/truths". Oftentimes some models are excluded as they just don't model certain aspects of the earth system well and just introduce error. quote:Imagine two illustrations, side by side. "Green and white Ecotopia, with architecture and solar panels by Apple Inc" (the positive future where we do everything right) vs "Mordor landscape with scorched trees and shells of buildings" (the worst case scenario if we do nothing). This has also been done. They are called "Representative Concentration Pathways". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways The RCP8.5 scenario, is your mordor landscape and is modelled with an extra 8.5 watts of warming per square meter on the planet. The RCP2.6 scenario would be your Green and Ecotopia, with an additional 2.6 watts of warming per square meter. With 30 models, and 4 different scenarios running for 140 years each amounts to a total of 16800 years of modelling in GCM. The amount of computational power for this is utterly enormous. While the raw data exists and is freely available to anyone, the skill that is required just to access it, is a huge hurdle. And its a full time job just to analyse and publish that analyses on a tiny portion of it. That being said there is a army of scientists doing just that. Each with a very specific skill set analyzing a very specific part of our climate system. Trying to determine what the range of possibilities are for a specific part of our climate system. https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=allintitle%3A+CMIP5&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 These models and analyses on them form a large part of the IPCC reports and their projections. As always, the IPCC reports are the main vehicle through which published peer reviewed science is communicated to the public. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
And for the reader, we're past RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and are realistically looking at 8.5+. Not to mention each revision of the models have had to push the forecast further up in terms of temperature and effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Right. What I'm suggesting is taking the output of those model runs and putting a human face on them. Tie each one to specific location and flesh it out. Individually, any one illlustration/story is as useless as the individual model run that inspired it. But together, the model runs mean something. Together, the illustrated future scenarios based on those individual model runs might mean something. To a (vastly?) wider audience than the one that can be satisfied by a chart of watts per square meter delta and average temperature increase in degrees C. I know the IPCC and others do public facing stuff, but is there anything as... crude? Literal? Low brow? as what I'm suggesting? The problem with single future case studies (here's a vision of the destroyed rainforest, or a dried up lake, 2095) is that people (rightly) suspect these scenarios have been cherrypicked for maximum emotional effect, and disregard them. "Oh, that's just a Worst Case." What if you could hit them with Every Case and make them see how most are actually bad (but not hopeless)? That's what the models do, but the public doesn't understand them. Even if they believe you, people can't imagine what "+4C" means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:What if you could hit them with Every Case and make them see how most are actually bad (but not hopeless)? This is more or less exactly what governments have done. The problem is that the path we've continuously gone down is the one that is marked as the "hopeless" path. I don't know what your definitions of "actually bad" vs "hopeless" but I'd love to hear it. Prolonged Priapism posted:Even if they believe you, people can't imagine what "+4C" means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dOT-QySQE
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:Right. What I'm suggesting is taking the output of those model runs and putting a human face on them. Tie each one to specific location and flesh it out. Individually, any one illlustration/story is as useless as the individual model run that inspired it. But together, the model runs mean something. Together, the illustrated future scenarios based on those individual model runs might mean something. To a (vastly?) wider audience than the one that can be satisfied by a chart of watts per square meter delta and average temperature increase in degrees C. I know the IPCC and others do public facing stuff, but is there anything as... crude? Literal? Low brow? as what I'm suggesting? When singular forecasts are presented (from a credible source) it should always be the ensemble mean, but that aside. Okay yeah, you are mostly on the communication thing. Scientists do science and while many have tried to get into what is effectively the "media/advertising space", such ventures have proved to be wildly ineffective. For many reasons. Not least at all that scientists don't have the right skill sets for that. For the most part (I think) they are just about getting on with the science and doing what they can. Its only really in the USA and Australia where there are large anti climate change lobbies and no amount of rational argument is going to change that. I think there is some value in what you are suggesting but it would be difficult to produce. You would primarily be looking for skills that belong in media/advertising space. And it could be career limiting for scientists to be professionally attached to such a "low brow/crude project". But who would organise and fund such a venture?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
I suggest personal decisions on how to live your life in the most lovely fashion physically possible. In other words, AGW is just the uncontrollable human bs being thrust upon our generation. It sucks, but wtf doesn't? Gather resources to survive or else die. Life is life. Smile more, pals Life has balanced on the precarious percipice of out of control entropy forever... so what. Be happy
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:No, don't produce unnecessary environmental degradation. Just because your indivudual action will not "save the planet from climate change or save humans from extinction" does not mean that it is ethical to ignore the negative consequences that your decadent actions will generate. I know this is from a while back in the conversation, but I think it has an important message. People do what other people around them do. If people see a culture around them of personal responsibility, environmental awareness, and a dedication to doing their part to solve this crisis, they will join into that culture to fit in. If that becomes the overwhelming norm, it will be much easier to demand (or force) action from politicians. The other thing I think people keep missing is this: Yes, we are probably locked in to a certain amount of temperature rise. There's basically no way we go under 2 degrees C. However, it can always get worse. There is no point where giving up is a good choice, because the longer we take to solve this problem, the worse it gets. The question is not "how do we stop climate change" but "how do we minimize the damage of climate change and prevent it from getting worse." As always, then, the most productive conversation is one on specific actions--how do we build a culture and movement that will begin to address the problem? Just like how people set goals for their personal lives, topics should be specific, relevant, attainable, and in a reasonable timeframe. The people who go "my new year's resolution is to lose weight and exercise more because I want look good" fail pretty much every time. A goal of "I will lose 10 pounds over 5 months by jogging 3 times a week and eliminating soda from my diet" is going to see a lot more success. That same concept is transferable to political action. There's a reason I didn't start the thread with "and so we should end capitalism and build 7000 liquid thorium nuclear reactors," even though that would do a bang-up job solving most things. Ain't gonna happen that way, though. I started the thread with "here's how a bunch of local groups are trying to stop a coal export terminal." And, though it took several years, coal terminals proposed all across Washington state were halted one by one by local groups and actions. Set a goal, like, "I'm going to spend 2 hours a week looking for environmentalist or left organizations until I find one I want to join." Then you can join something a group is doing, which will hold you accountable and magnify how much you can achieve, which might be something like "We're going to organize a protest, petition city council, and threaten to run candidates against incumbents who don't vote to stop this new coal mine from opening." You personal role might be "I will design and print 100 flyers and start an online event for one of the protests," while another person's role might be "I will organize a door-knocking campaign on X weekend and we will knock on 500 doors to talk about this issue with people." That is concrete, specific action. Then you can report to the thread, and maybe inspire some other folks to take action in their community. What won't work? Attacking each other as idealists because you're too hopeful/too depressed/slightly disagree on some minutia. Posting about what you would do if you controlled international policy discussions. Posting about how many kids other people should have. So for example, another poster was involved in the fossil fuel divestment campaign at a local college. It scared the heck out of some people who weren't used to public scrutiny and got some stuff done. Is climate change over? Heck no. But it got some like-minded people working together to achieve a small but attainable goal that might lead to larger changes or another successful action in the future. That is how poo poo gets done. Is there a divestment campaign at your college? Maybe! If there isn't, you could start one. The one at the college I went to started with like 6 people who then reached out to my group, and started. Did it work? Nope! But it did get a bunch of activists to link up and work with each other on other issues as well, and that did achieve some small goals. It won't happen tomorrow. Yes, it's a big problem, no poo poo. But focus on the concrete, small actions that you personally can take. If enough people do that, it can make a difference. I think this is a point most people broadly agree on; most of the heated arguments seem to focus more on the abstract and big picture, which it is much easier to find contradictory opinions on because of how much uncertainty surrounds the future. Edit: I typed this up before catching up on the last bunch of posts. I think people with similar ideas are talking past each other again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Patting yourself on your back for joining an environmental club seems pointless when you're not willing to consider the two actions that are meaningful on an individual level - not have kids and to give up meat. That they're not starters for Western materialists really summarises the impossibility of modern western society dealing with AGC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
Speaking of which https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/788061946880729089
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
That video is fine, but it sort of highlights what I'm talking about. It's all very abstract. "An Ice Age Unit in the other direction?" I get it, conceptually. But then he's talking about really long timescales and hundreds of meters of sea level rise. Only one guy actually said "children and grandchildren" and gave the specific(ish) example of farmland turning to desert. That's what people need to hear, some tangible thing that could affect the people they care about. Another guy said "several meters instead of 12 centimeters." After the first guy said "hundreds." Again, I know what they're trying to get across, that they're talking about a bunch of different times (a long time ago, right now, 2100ish, far future) but if you're a layman watching that video, it's confusing, contradictory, and abstract.NewForumSoftware posted:I don't know what your definitions of "actually bad" vs "hopeless" but I'd love to hear it. Living in India, right now. Living in Shithole, Mississippi, right now. Bad. But not hopeless. The future won't be some unimaginable thing, it'll have very close analogues to somewhere that already exists currently. If you tell (and show) people in Middle America that they'll look like Average Mexico in 100 years, they might pay attention. Give them something specific and realistic to want to avoid. BattleMoose posted:I think there is some value in what you are suggesting but it would be difficult to produce. You would primarily be looking for skills that belong in media/advertising space. And it could be career limiting for scientists to be professionally attached to such a "low brow/crude project". But who would organise and fund such a venture? Oh, it's something I've thought about doing myself. I'm not a skilled enough painter to do it justice yet, but maybe in a year or two I could reasonably start. Working digitally, producing 100 or 200 images good enough to publish would only take a few years. Similar to a novel, or any other "big" art project. I'm sure once it got started/serious there would be people willing to help on the technical side (I can muddle along for a good bit, my BS is in physics). Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Speaking of which Good job everyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:That video is fine, but it sort of highlights what I'm talking about. It's all very abstract. "An Ice Age Unit in the other direction?" I get it, conceptually. But then he's talking about really long timescales and hundreds of meters of sea level rise. Only one guy actually said "children and grandchildren" and gave the specific(ish) example of farmland turning to desert. That's what people need to hear, some tangible thing that could affect the people they care about. Another guy said "several meters instead of 12 centimeters." After the first guy said "hundreds." Again, I know what they're trying to get across, that they're talking about a bunch of different times (a long time ago, right now, 2100ish, far future) but if you're a layman watching that video, it's confusing, contradictory, and abstract. Yeah, I see your point now, and I kind of agree with you. Global Warming and climate change needs better PR, needs a human face and relatable ways of getting the message across, because charts and scientists aren't cutting it. A big problem I see, is that this - even with the addition of viral effects, internet awareness etc. - something like this would be quite expensive. Who would pay for this? Governments wouldn't, because there's no profit in stirring up a placated population. Private interest wouldn't. A grand coalition of environmental interest groups and the like probably could, but we'd need that grand coalition first. But I absolutely agree that people aren't talking about it enough, both because it's very uncomfortable to think about and because they don't really understand the threat other than some vague notion of doom. Your proposal goes a long way towards eliminating the central problem of climate change: It's happening too slowly for us to understand and react to it naturally, like we'd respond to any properly perceived threat. Uranium Phoenix posted:I know this is from a while back in the conversation, but I think it has an important message. Also, good point. I'm ashamed to say I'm not currently active with any environmental groups, I've mostly focused on personal efforts and my own plans for adapting my future and my family's future with regards to the effects of climate change. Don't really know that any exist near me, but I'll go looking. I think a common thread here is that while small person actions will amount to some, but not enough, community activism and participation in campaigns and political movements can quickly add up to a big difference mitigation-wise. It's actually the only realistic avenue that I can see towards creating a mass people's movement to end consumerism and make wastefulness and pollution absolutely heinous behaviour in our society. And to be frank, that kind of paradigm shift is probably a requirement for serious mitigation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 09:51
|
|
