NewForumSoftware posted:

Your kids will be fine. Worst case scenario they live a much more normal human life (in the context of our entire existence as a species) and have to live without the modern technology we so desperately "need". The good news is humans adapt incredibly well and even with much lower material wealth they will still laugh, cry, fall in love, and maybe even have children of their own

NewForumSoftware posted:

here you go http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8533

"modeled scientifically" yeah throw those weasel words in there in advance

from 2012:


Like they literally knew this was not going to be in before they released it. the IPCC is a politically motivated body and should be treated with scrutiny.

There's plenty of science on the effects of permafrost melting. The fact that we don't know enough(allegedly) isn't an excuse to ignore it imo.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Those are the feedbacks like permafrost melting, forests burning, etc that are already happening today which will ensure all the milquetoast methods of reducing emissions Thug Lessons/Trabinskof has a hard on for will do literally nothing as things get worse regardless of what we do. That's not to mention things like methane clathrates melting, which is basically an apocalypse in climate terms (and likely at least 5-6 degree C away from what I understand)

Nocturtle posted:

In the event we've already entered the feedback dominated regime it's interesting if completely academic to consider if we ever had a chance to prevent it. For example if 2010 was the actual "tipping point", could we ever realistically have decarbonized the entire global economy before then? I think that probably wasn't achievable as it would have required strict adherence to the Kyoto protocol followed up by an even stronger international agreement PLUS getting India and China on board before their carbon emissions blew up in the late 2000s. It would have required a very different and much more co-operative global political and economic system than the one we had, for context the forever-enemy Soviet Union only dissolved in 1991. Even then it probably would have required that the US + other major western economies had gone all in on nuclear power like France sometime in the 1970s. By the 1990s the US economy was still too dependent on fossil fuels to ever realistically switch within 20 years. They should have but it was still very much Reagan's America.

I don't actually know if we've already entered the feedback dominated regime, although it's clear we're coming way closer than we ever should have.

Thug Lessons posted:

Here's a graph from the towards the end of the report.



So, we're looking at 45-135Gt of CO2 equivalent emission over the next 80 years. So 0.5-1.6Gt a year. That's important and I agree it should be included in the IPCC reports, but human emissions are 36Gt annual and completely dwarf these estimated arctic releases, which are going to play only a minor role in climate change over the next century. The main thing to worry about is human emissions, not arctic.

NewForumSoftware posted:

I never said arctic emissions were the main thing to worry about, I said the IPCC's 5th report underestimates temperatures moving forward in all scenarios because their models didn't include a variety of feedbacks. Permafrost melting was just one of those ways, water vapor feedbacks are another.

Thug Lessons posted:

Water vapor feedback is explicitly included in the IPCC's calculations of climate sensitivity. You are full of poo poo.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

NewForumSoftware posted:

You honestly shouldn't read the thread if these sorts of thoughts are running through your head




But please, tell me why I'm the insane one here.


"Modern technology" is a huge umbrella and obviously we're not going to lose all of it. There are things that we have that are incredibly reliant on things like global supply chains and cheap electricity that will probably stop being economically viable as time goes on. Or at least will change drastically from what we know today. Things like transportation, food, etc.

Trainee PornStar posted:

This is why your making me depressed mate.. because I think your probably right.

Not knocking you for speaking somewhere close to the truth though.

Trainee PornStar posted:

This is why your making me depressed mate.. because I think your probably right.

Not knocking you for speaking somewhere close to the truth though.

Huzanko posted:

NFS is a sadbrain who wants everyone to think the world is going to end and that there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, so that you become a sadbrain like him.

quote:

In another thread he is arguing that UHC matters more than climate change since there's nothing we can do about climate change, as if you can have UHC in a world where catastrophic climate change has happened. He also doesn't understand that UHC would make an impact on climate change through the availability of family planning, abortion, and birth control.

StabbinHobo posted:

interestingly I think they really are the "same" thing (UHC & AGW)

we as a socio-economic system (civilization/society/humanity, whatever you want to call it) are hitting a threshold where we either have to evolve to a model of *global* resource rationing, or we'll fail and hopefully the people reading wikipedia after the die-off try again.

if we can't agree that all people deserve healthcare, then it fairly well follows we're never going to agree that we'll give up our cars and yards so that chinese ppl can have clean warm homes.

global UHC "family planning and reproductive health" is the ultimate answer here, so getting UHC in america is a fairly direct next-step.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Sorry I should be more clear and say they weren't modelled as accurately as they could have been. Same goes for things like the impact of forest fires increasing. It's not just omissions, it's under-reporting as well.

Fwiw here's better data for water vapor sensitivities: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087 (link to paper) (again, released before the IPCC report but not included because )

Like if that makes you think I'm full of poo poo whatever I don't really care what you think that much I just think talking about 2 degree targets is idiocy. Also not acknowledging that conspicuous consumption is a big part of the reason the human race is here in the first place is pretty absurd. Look at the per capita energy usage for some countries.

Thug Lessons posted:

But YOUR estimations are so out of line with the science that it blows and confirmation error by the IPCC out of the water,

quote:

the IPCC is a politically motivated body and should be treated with scrutiny.

NewForumSoftware posted:

What exactly do you think my estimations are? The only thing I've said is that RCP 2.5 is a joke and that we're not going to stabilize the climate at 2 degrees C by 2100.

Huzanko posted:

NFS is a sadbrain who wants everyone to think the world is going to end and that there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, so that you become a sadbrain like him.

In another thread he is arguing that UHC matters more than climate change since there's nothing we can do about climate change, as if you can have UHC in a world where catastrophic climate change has happened. He also doesn't understand that UHC would make an impact on climate change through the availability of family planning, abortion, and birth control.

Thug Lessons posted:

You're definitely over-estimating the climate sensitivity massively, (most results fall within the IPCC range and actually tend towards the lower end), because you apparently believe even at current 400ppm we're locked in to >2 C b y 2100. I believe RCP2.5 is a joke too, but because of its emission cut targets, not bad climate sensitivity estimates.

Thug Lessons posted:

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that we literally can't do anything because the climate is already in a perpetual feedback loop, (based, apparently, on 1.5Gt/year arctic CO2 emissions, less than 5% of human emissions), so cutting emissions wouldn't even do anything. This is well beyond mainstream climate science.

quote:

Are modelling outcomes sometimes interpreted in such a way as understate the risks or fail to appreciate the high-end outcomes?

For example, one can get caught up in the numerical detail of a carbon budget that has a 50% or 66% chance of not exceeding the target. But what do those numbers mean?

For a 1.5°C budget with a 50% risk, there is a one-in-two chance of exceeding 1.5°C of warming. What is not generally said is that this scenario also has around a 33% chance of exceeding 2°C of warming, and around a 10% chance of exceeding 3°C of warming. (10)

People do not board planes or cross bridges if there is a 10% chance of failure.

Notably, carbon budgets are rarely given for higher chances of keeping under the target, for example 90% or 95% or 99%. And the reason is straight forward: with this more sensible, low-risk approach there is no carbon budget left for either the 1.5°C target or the 2°C target. (11)

In other words, there is no carbon budget if 1.5°C is considered a cap (an upper boundary not to be exceeded) as per the Copenhagen Accord, rather than a target (an aspiration which can be significantly exceeded).

Conventional risk management techniques cannot adequately deal with the high-end, existential climate risks. The former senior fossil fuel executive Ian Dunlop has pointed to the folly:

The fundamental point being missed is that the “fat-tail” risks of climate change — the irreversible, positive-feedback tipping points which have long concerned scientists — are being triggered at today’s warming of just 1°C. This can be seen in the Arctic and the Antarctic, in our oceans, and not least with the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. These are genuine, existential risks unlike anything previously experienced by humanity, which will result in a substantial reduction in global population unless rapidly addressed. They cannot be handled by existing risk-management techniques. (12)

NewForumSoftware posted:

Arglebargle III posted:

What are we looking at here?

NewForumSoftware posted:

I don't think we're "locked in" to 2 degrees C by 2100 because of the amount of carbon in the air, but because the way in which we've constructed our global society is incapable of stopping or slowing down emissions. I'm not even entirely sure we're capable as a species of dealing with some of the more biological components (like our hosed up discount window) without some sort of global authoritarian regime. We're at 408ppm now and I'm sure we'll blow past whatever the most dire estimates the IPCC puts forth. We're already past RCP 8.5 (the 'worst case') as far as emissions go.

I mean, I could sit here and try to be optimistic but

Thug Lessons posted:

That graph doesn't really say much of anything at all. Emissions have actually leveled off over the past three years. OECD countries have had declining emissions, year after year, for a decade. I'm not going to try and tell you that this means we're actually going to peak emissions in 2020, but it gives lie to the idea that the emission rate is just out of control and can only go upward.

Xeom posted:

Not here to disagree with anybody about the temperatures, but before technology disappears billions will die and that probably includes your children. We will be burning every ounce of fossil fuel, sorry my dudes.

Potato Salad posted:

I look forward to Zaire building nuclear reactors. I look forward to Bangladesh building reactors in an era of stretched funding and strained administrative capability and infrastructure. And war.

Of course, the first world could just give them reactors, a thing that during a period of rising America First isolationism and regressive revenue collection is totally going to happen.

ChairMaster posted:

I'm a little surprised at people calling NFS a pessimist. I'm not as good at being a weird forums stalker as some other people apparently, but I'd say he seems a little naive and optimistic. He seems to buy into the idea that the first world is basically gonna be fine overall and we're just gonna have to watch as all the third world countries get annihilated and we gun down millions of climate refugees for decades.

I mean it's a nice thought, but it seems unrealistically optimistic to me.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Yeah I don't know what to tell you, this is one of those "agree to disagree" moments because I don't think humanity is going to stop burning fossil fuels until the EROEI hits like 5 or something.

ChairMaster posted:

I'm a little surprised at people calling NFS a pessimist. I'm not as good at being a weird forums stalker as some other people apparently, but I'd say he seems a little naive and optimistic. He seems to buy into the idea that the first world is basically gonna be fine overall and we're just gonna have to watch as all the third world countries get annihilated and we gun down millions of climate refugees for decades.

I mean it's a nice thought, but it seems unrealistically optimistic to me.

Thug Lessons posted:

It doesn't have to stop burning fossil fuels to reduce the rate at which it does so, or just burn natural gas instead of coal and emit 50% less carbon.

quote:

The whole point of Paris is that the world is now showing a half-hearted, insufficient effort to combat climate change, but an effort none the less.

Potato Salad posted:

I think you may have skipped over what I would have hoped was fairly clear sarcasm.

I do not believe anyone is going to be building reactors for the third world.

Potato Salad posted:

Reality check: nobody is going to swoop in and build billion-dollar reactors for the industrializing world. They are going to burn fossil fuels because that's what they can afford to build or what they already have.