4 ms·

FYI to anyone else reading, this is the other side of science-denial coin, the doomer side. The most authoritative reports (ipcc ar6 and sr15) show us probably

FYI to anyone else reading, this is the other side of science-denial coin, the doomer side. The most authoritative reports (ipcc ar6 and sr15) show us probably landing in the low 4's in a "BAU" scenario. However those scenarios are widely acknowledged as no longer plausible, as the cost curves of three things: wind, solar, and batteries have invalidated several of the assumptions about future growth in coal and oil demand. Scientifically speaking we are on target for something over 2C but below 4C. Keep in mind that what we're seing today (puerto rico, california, australia) is 1C. 2C will be terrifying, so the news that we will likely not break 4C is very very mild comfort. Its just that anyone talking about 5, 6, etc is negative-spiraling in a way unsupported by the research and current economics.

carapace 7y ago
> is negative-spiraling in a way unsupported by the research and current economics. Are you sure? (I'm a "doomer" I admit, but I think the science is there.) From Dr. Gwynne Dyer – "Geopolitics in a Hotter World" – UBC Talk Transcribed (Sept. 2010) https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geopolitics-in-a-hotter-world-ubc-talk-transcribed-sept-2010/ https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geo... > All of these numbers are fairly fuzzy, but what happens around 2 degrees is that the natural–the consequences of the warming trigger natural processes that contribute further to the warming (positive feedbacks as they are called) in which the permafrost melts and releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere; in which the surface waters of the oceans become so warm they can no longer contain all of the carbon dioxide they absorbed earlier–high school physics, right? Warmer water can contain less dissolved gas. Buy yourself a beer and you’ll see what I mean: if you don’t drink it, it goes flat as it warms up. > So, all of those feedbacks kick in around 2 degrees and then you’ve lost control, to the point where you may not be able to stop the warming process, even if you stop all of your own emissions.
- cagenut 7y ago
  I'm a fan of Gwynne Dyer youtubes, I think he does an excellent job of articulating the most plausible doomer case, particularly w/r/t to india. However that's not scientific research published in peer reviewed journals and then aggregated into UN reports. That's just some professor telling plausible stories in a confident tone of voice. Specifically the big distinction you will notice between the former and the latter is the latter always depends on "feedback loops" which are un-researched speculation that things will get exponentially worse faster than expected in some way. Now, I don't deny the basic premise of what feedback loops are and how they can work, but if you don't have any research or science to back it then talking about "feedback loops" is functionally just a fancier phrase for "depressive negative spiraling". Its not that its not plausible, its that its a story, not science.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - carapace 7y ago
    Okay, I mostly agree with you, but saying we should plan for something plausible but not (yet) scientifically established is different than "science-denial", eh?
  - DesiLurker 7y ago
    the problem is IPCC does not includes these 'feedback loops' into their reports. which by themselves are based on atleast a half a decade old 'safe' science due to publication pipeline. This is the reason why most of the climate reporting these days has some sort of 'faster than expected' adjectives. do you honestly believe that there is going to be no impact of permafrost melting or ocean ICE loss resulting in increased albedo? the question is why is IPCC knowingly ignoring these important feedback loops in their reports? another point to consider, IPCC reporting is typically condensed into 3 scenarios 33%/66%/99% probabilities of staying below 2C. the most quoted carbon budget numbers come from the 66% scenario. is that wise? if we are talking planet-wide death & destruction then shouldn't we be aiming for 99%. if you consider that IMO IPCC is too timid on this issue and is essentially making a case of massive geoengineering when the 'faster than expected' becomes really bad.
throwlaplace 7y ago
>2C will be terrifying, so the news that we will likely not break 4C is very very mild comfort. how is terrifying any less provocative than "doom"? i'm just as concerned about terrifying circumstances as i am about being doomed? more likely person you responded to is just as terrified as you are and simply remembered the wrong figure (6 instead of 4). i'm not a denialist but i do think we're doomed.
- cagenut 7y ago
  To me the distinction between terrifying and doomed is that the former is something you can/should react to and the later is something you've defined as too-late or given up on. We are not (yet) doomed.
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    > We are not (yet) doomed. there's literally nothing that suggests otherwise, other than that it's physically possible to reduce consumption (i.e. it's not counter to the laws of physics). there is zero political or practical plausibility for reducing consumption to the extent that is necessary to avoid 4 degrees. you're holding out hope for something as unlikely as a miracle. edit: there was a talk given years ago (i forget where/which channel) where the speaker said that to avoid warming we'd need to mobilize on the scale that we did for ww2 i.e. factories would need to be repurposed and laborers re-skilled. in that scenario it would be plausible. ww2[1] mobilized roughly 7 million people. if today we applied that kind of effort to the problem then maybe we'd have a chance. i don't know i'm not an economist but it's a unilateral effort on that scale that's necessary. and if you look around you can see it's not happening. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_during_World_War_II#Labor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_durin...
macspoofing 7y ago
>FYI to anyone else reading, this is the other side of science-denial coin, the doomer side Why not the 'realist' side? >wind, solar, and batteries have invalidated several of the assumptions about future growth in coal and oil demand. Did they now? Coal and natural gas growth have outpaced solar and wind deployments. There is still no grid-level storage solution to actually make solar and wind viable replacements, and there isn't one forthcoming anytime soon (right now, places like California, and Germany simply use natural gas backup).

carapace 7y ago

> is negative-spiraling in a way unsupported by the research and current economics. Are you sure? (I'm a "doomer" I admit, but I think the science is there.) From Dr. Gwynne Dyer – "Geopolitics in a Hotter World" – UBC Talk Transcribed (Sept. 2010) https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geopolitics-in-a-hotter-world-ubc-talk-transcribed-sept-2010/ https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geo... > All of these numbers are fairly fuzzy, but what happens around 2 degrees is that the natural–the consequences of the warming trigger natural processes that contribute further to the warming (positive feedbacks as they are called) in which the permafrost melts and releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere; in which the surface waters of the oceans become so warm they can no longer contain all of the carbon dioxide they absorbed earlier–high school physics, right? Warmer water can contain less dissolved gas. Buy yourself a beer and you’ll see what I mean: if you don’t drink it, it goes flat as it warms up. > So, all of those feedbacks kick in around 2 degrees and then you’ve lost control, to the point where you may not be able to stop the warming process, even if you stop all of your own emissions.

cagenut 7y ago
I'm a fan of Gwynne Dyer youtubes, I think he does an excellent job of articulating the most plausible doomer case, particularly w/r/t to india. However that's not scientific research published in peer reviewed journals and then aggregated into UN reports. That's just some professor telling plausible stories in a confident tone of voice. Specifically the big distinction you will notice between the former and the latter is the latter always depends on "feedback loops" which are un-researched speculation that things will get exponentially worse faster than expected in some way. Now, I don't deny the basic premise of what feedback loops are and how they can work, but if you don't have any research or science to back it then talking about "feedback loops" is functionally just a fancier phrase for "depressive negative spiraling". Its not that its not plausible, its that its a story, not science.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- carapace 7y ago
  Okay, I mostly agree with you, but saying we should plan for something plausible but not (yet) scientifically established is different than "science-denial", eh?
- DesiLurker 7y ago
  the problem is IPCC does not includes these 'feedback loops' into their reports. which by themselves are based on atleast a half a decade old 'safe' science due to publication pipeline. This is the reason why most of the climate reporting these days has some sort of 'faster than expected' adjectives. do you honestly believe that there is going to be no impact of permafrost melting or ocean ICE loss resulting in increased albedo? the question is why is IPCC knowingly ignoring these important feedback loops in their reports? another point to consider, IPCC reporting is typically condensed into 3 scenarios 33%/66%/99% probabilities of staying below 2C. the most quoted carbon budget numbers come from the 66% scenario. is that wise? if we are talking planet-wide death & destruction then shouldn't we be aiming for 99%. if you consider that IMO IPCC is too timid on this issue and is essentially making a case of massive geoengineering when the 'faster than expected' becomes really bad.

throwlaplace 7y ago

>2C will be terrifying, so the news that we will likely not break 4C is very very mild comfort. how is terrifying any less provocative than "doom"? i'm just as concerned about terrifying circumstances as i am about being doomed? more likely person you responded to is just as terrified as you are and simply remembered the wrong figure (6 instead of 4). i'm not a denialist but i do think we're doomed.

cagenut 7y ago
To me the distinction between terrifying and doomed is that the former is something you can/should react to and the later is something you've defined as too-late or given up on. We are not (yet) doomed.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  > We are not (yet) doomed. there's literally nothing that suggests otherwise, other than that it's physically possible to reduce consumption (i.e. it's not counter to the laws of physics). there is zero political or practical plausibility for reducing consumption to the extent that is necessary to avoid 4 degrees. you're holding out hope for something as unlikely as a miracle. edit: there was a talk given years ago (i forget where/which channel) where the speaker said that to avoid warming we'd need to mobilize on the scale that we did for ww2 i.e. factories would need to be repurposed and laborers re-skilled. in that scenario it would be plausible. ww2[1] mobilized roughly 7 million people. if today we applied that kind of effort to the problem then maybe we'd have a chance. i don't know i'm not an economist but it's a unilateral effort on that scale that's necessary. and if you look around you can see it's not happening. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_during_World_War_II#Labor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_durin...

macspoofing 7y ago

>FYI to anyone else reading, this is the other side of science-denial coin, the doomer side Why not the 'realist' side? >wind, solar, and batteries have invalidated several of the assumptions about future growth in coal and oil demand. Did they now? Coal and natural gas growth have outpaced solar and wind deployments. There is still no grid-level storage solution to actually make solar and wind viable replacements, and there isn't one forthcoming anytime soon (right now, places like California, and Germany simply use natural gas backup).