5 ms·

Your entire reply is extreme in the sense it is all absolutes. Please provide sources that we are in a 'race for your lives'. And please don't make assumptions

by Knufen 8y ago

Your entire reply is extreme in the sense it is all absolutes. Please provide sources that we are in a 'race for your lives'. And please don't make assumptions about other people or their lives without more information. It gives you the appearance of a paranoid alarmist.

diafygi 8y ago
> Your entire reply is extreme in the sense it is all absolutes. Please provide sources that we are in a 'race for your lives'. Graph: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3a.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3... Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ News: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-repo... This is the carbon emission reduction curve we have to hit if we want to hit our Paris Agreement targets. That's a pretty steep drop off if you ask me, and certainly falls into the category of a "race for your lives". Do you disagree? Please provide sources that we aren't in such a rush to curtail fossil emissions (because there's mountains of science saying we are). > It gives you the appearance of a paranoid alarmist. How can I be paranoid if the science backs me up? However, I do think being an alarmist is appropriate for the situation. If that graph isn't a mash-the-big-red-button moment, I don't know what would be.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I believe that there is a gap in your argument. We have to hustle to hit our Paris Agreement targets, but missing them isn't exactly equivalent to dying - at least, I don't think you've shown it to be. That's why it's not "a race for our lives". But, you may say, a lot of people will die from climate change. (And a lot definitely die from pollution.) A lot die from malaria, too, but we don't have a "race for our lives" on that one. Cynically, most people don't consider a bunch of other people dying as a "race for our lives". (We did more or less have a "race for our lives" on AIDS, though. It seems that we start to care when it's hitting closer to home, and we think that it could be us. That's the problem with your argument. You haven't shown people enough evidence that they think it will be them dying, so they don't think it's "a race for our lives".)
  - diafygi 8y ago
    Hmmm, for non-scientific discussions, I tend to like the XKCD scale for global temperature averages. https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ Going above Paris gets into the "there be dragons" realm of human survival. The Pentagon is predicting mass migrations, wars, famine, and economic implosion[1]. I feel like that certainly constitutes "race for our lives" level of rhetoric. Usually, when someone balks at strong rhetoric on climate change they are (1) unaware of the scale and severity of the problem or (2) don't see those affected as within their "our" definition (e.g. it will happen to other people, not my people). The former is slowly being solved through increased education and awareness, the later will likely always be present due to human tribalism and racism. As far as the malaria theory, it's a very different strategy when you are actively causing the problem you are trying to solve. It's as if we are repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot, then some of us say we should stop, then you say why are you so focused on the foot-shooting vs cancer killing us. One is an immediately addressable problem caused by ourselves, one is a natural threat that is not under our direct and immediate control (thus takes much longer to understand and solve). [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-w...
    - specialist 8y ago
      IIRC, Eocene period had atmospheric CO2 up to 2000 ppm, the known max. I figure we'll meet that target (ocean acidification, thawing tundra, desertification). So life will somehow survive. Though I wouldn't place bets that we humans will squeeze thru that keyhole.
specialist 8y ago
How bad does it have to get, eg CO2 ppm or global temperature average or whatever, for this to be a catastrophe?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Define "catastrophe". Is a thousand people dying a catastrophe? A million? Or does it take a billion? If it's a thousand (or maybe even a million), we're already there just with air pollution. Forget CO2, particulates are already that level of catastrophe. For just CO2 or global warming, there are projections (or, less charitably, guesses) about how much CO2 will lead to how much warming, which will lead to how many deaths. Pick your level of what constitutes a catastrophe to you, and then pick which projections you find most believable. For actual answers rather than projections, we'll have to wait until after it happens (at which point it's a bit late to try to do anything about it).
  - specialist 8y ago
    I remain keen to learn Knufen's definition of catastrophe.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      You might also give yours... But my point was, there's different levels that are "catastrophic", depending on your definition of catastrophe. There is no one answer to the question.
      - specialist 8y ago
        Let's start with Knufen's definition. Knufen minimized diafygi's position (acting extreme, paranoid alarmist). So now I want to know what Knufen considers worth his/her concern.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        A quick review shows that you were the first one to use the word "catastrophe" in this discussion. Neither Knufen nor diafygi used the word. But if you insist on getting Knufen's definition of catastrophe, you should also get diafygi's, since diafygi posted the claim that we're arguing about in this sub-thread.

by Knufen 8y ago

diafygi 8y ago

> Your entire reply is extreme in the sense it is all absolutes. Please provide sources that we are in a 'race for your lives'. Graph: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3a.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3... Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ News: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-repo... This is the carbon emission reduction curve we have to hit if we want to hit our Paris Agreement targets. That's a pretty steep drop off if you ask me, and certainly falls into the category of a "race for your lives". Do you disagree? Please provide sources that we aren't in such a rush to curtail fossil emissions (because there's mountains of science saying we are). > It gives you the appearance of a paranoid alarmist. How can I be paranoid if the science backs me up? However, I do think being an alarmist is appropriate for the situation. If that graph isn't a mash-the-big-red-button moment, I don't know what would be.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I believe that there is a gap in your argument. We have to hustle to hit our Paris Agreement targets, but missing them isn't exactly equivalent to dying - at least, I don't think you've shown it to be. That's why it's not "a race for our lives". But, you may say, a lot of people will die from climate change. (And a lot definitely die from pollution.) A lot die from malaria, too, but we don't have a "race for our lives" on that one. Cynically, most people don't consider a bunch of other people dying as a "race for our lives". (We did more or less have a "race for our lives" on AIDS, though. It seems that we start to care when it's hitting closer to home, and we think that it could be us. That's the problem with your argument. You haven't shown people enough evidence that they think it will be them dying, so they don't think it's "a race for our lives".)
- diafygi 8y ago
  Hmmm, for non-scientific discussions, I tend to like the XKCD scale for global temperature averages. https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ Going above Paris gets into the "there be dragons" realm of human survival. The Pentagon is predicting mass migrations, wars, famine, and economic implosion[1]. I feel like that certainly constitutes "race for our lives" level of rhetoric. Usually, when someone balks at strong rhetoric on climate change they are (1) unaware of the scale and severity of the problem or (2) don't see those affected as within their "our" definition (e.g. it will happen to other people, not my people). The former is slowly being solved through increased education and awareness, the later will likely always be present due to human tribalism and racism. As far as the malaria theory, it's a very different strategy when you are actively causing the problem you are trying to solve. It's as if we are repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot, then some of us say we should stop, then you say why are you so focused on the foot-shooting vs cancer killing us. One is an immediately addressable problem caused by ourselves, one is a natural threat that is not under our direct and immediate control (thus takes much longer to understand and solve). [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-w...
  - specialist 8y ago
    IIRC, Eocene period had atmospheric CO2 up to 2000 ppm, the known max. I figure we'll meet that target (ocean acidification, thawing tundra, desertification). So life will somehow survive. Though I wouldn't place bets that we humans will squeeze thru that keyhole.

specialist 8y ago

How bad does it have to get, eg CO2 ppm or global temperature average or whatever, for this to be a catastrophe?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Define "catastrophe". Is a thousand people dying a catastrophe? A million? Or does it take a billion? If it's a thousand (or maybe even a million), we're already there just with air pollution. Forget CO2, particulates are already that level of catastrophe. For just CO2 or global warming, there are projections (or, less charitably, guesses) about how much CO2 will lead to how much warming, which will lead to how many deaths. Pick your level of what constitutes a catastrophe to you, and then pick which projections you find most believable. For actual answers rather than projections, we'll have to wait until after it happens (at which point it's a bit late to try to do anything about it).
- specialist 8y ago
  I remain keen to learn Knufen's definition of catastrophe.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    You might also give yours... But my point was, there's different levels that are "catastrophic", depending on your definition of catastrophe. There is no one answer to the question.
    - specialist 8y ago
      Let's start with Knufen's definition. Knufen minimized diafygi's position (acting extreme, paranoid alarmist). So now I want to know what Knufen considers worth his/her concern.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        A quick review shows that you were the first one to use the word "catastrophe" in this discussion. Neither Knufen nor diafygi used the word. But if you insist on getting Knufen's definition of catastrophe, you should also get diafygi's, since diafygi posted the claim that we're arguing about in this sub-thread.