4 ms·

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

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.

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.