5 ms·

The risk, presumably is the outcomes of climate change- which are uncertain and almost certainly not guaranteed death for everyone

wizzwizz4 5y ago
“Guaranteed death for everyone” is the current state of affairs. You will die. I will die. This is a terrible bar for “should we care about this issue”? Autocratic dictator of the world says “deciduous trees and the colour yellow are now banned, on pain of death”? Well, it's not guaranteed death for everyone, so why should I care?
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  I didn't say that you shouldn't care about it. I am saying that a 95th percentile negative outcome for climate change is still probably limited in its existential impact, not that you're gonna like it.
sammalloy 5y ago
Wet bulb temperature, clathrate gun, food web collapse, albedo decrease, dormant virus release from permafrost, increase of tropical disease, water scarcity, crop and livestock failure—that /is/ almost certainly guaranteed extinction for humanity. How is this even debatable? We are already on this path.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  But some groups of humans might survive, and might still have descendants tens of thousands of years later! It's not guaranteed that humanity goes extinct; we're pretty creative. (Though the same can't be said for a lot of other species.)
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Well, expert organizations like the IPCC produce reports on the expected impact of climate change, which don't include human extinction as even a worst-case possibility. I'm the last person who'd claim the experts are always right, but it's gotta be at least debatable.
  - sammalloy 5y ago
    This problem was discussed by Pratt and Dunlop in their 2019 policy paper for the National Centre for Climate Restoration: > Climate scientists may err on the side of “least drama”, whose causes may include adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity and skepticism, and may underpredict or down-play future climate changes. In 2007, security analysts warned that, in the two previous decades, scientific predictions in the climate-change arena had consistently under-estimated the severity of what actually transpired. > This problem persists, notably in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Assessment Reports exhibit a one-sided reliance on general climate models, which incorporate important climate processes, but do not include all of the processes that can contribute to system feedbacks, compound extreme events, and abrupt and/or irreversible changes. > Other forms of knowledge are downplayed, including paleoclimatology, expert advice, and semi-empirical models. IPCC reports present detailed, quantified, complex modelling results, but then briefly note more severe, non-linear, system-change possibilities in a descriptive, non-quantified form. Because policymakers and the media are often drawn to headline numbers, this approach results in less attention being given to the most devastating, difficult-to-quantify outcomes. > In one example, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 projected a sea-level rise of 0.55-0.82 metre by 2100, but said “levels above the likely range cannot be reliably evaluated”. By way of comparison, the higher of two US Department of Defence scenarios is a two-metre rise by 2100, and the “extreme” scenario developed by a number of US government agencies is 2.5 metres by 2100. > Another example is the recent IPCC 1.5°C report, which projected that warming would continue at the current rate of ~0.2°C per decade and reach the 1.5°C mark around 2040. However the 1.5°C boundary is likely to be passed in half that time, around 2030, and the 2°C boundary around 2045, due to accelerating anthropogenic emissions, decreased aerosol loading and changing ocean circulation conditions.
    - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
      "adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity and skepticism" This is science. It's what science is made of. Abandon these and you abandon science altogether. Which is fine, I guess, but it has no connection to reality.
- ThomPete 5y ago
  these are not the certainties you think they are. You are confusing speculation with demonstration. Astroid hitting earth is a far bigger threat to humanity than any scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change. You are not on the scientific ground you think you are.
  - sammalloy 5y ago
    Let's see, on the one hand we have climate change, the largest threat to humanity in this century, which is currently killing around 400,000 people a year and costing the world $1.2 trillion, impacting agricultural production, causing deaths from malnutrition, contributing to poverty, and increasing the incidence of disease. On the other hand, it is the opinion of astronomers that "no known asteroids currently pose any significant threat to Earth."
    - ThomPete 5y ago
      climate change is NOT the largest threat no matter how many times you repeat it. Astroids, suns exploding, super vulcanos etc these are actual potential extinction level events. Things that have actually been demonstrated to happen without human intervention. “No known” is what you are looking for. There are no known demonstrated consequences of climate change that we dont know how to deal with. More people are saved each year by human technology than die from it.
      - sammalloy 5y ago
        Climate change, caused by humans, is in fact the largest threat facing civilization at this time. And it will require human technology to mitigate it. You appear to making denialist arguments of some kind or another and changing the subject for some reason. There is currently no threat to humanity from asteroids, supernovae, supervolcanoes, or other types of existential risks. We know anthropogenic climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity at this time.
        ThomPete 5y ago

wizzwizz4 5y ago

“Guaranteed death for everyone” is the current state of affairs. You will die. I will die. This is a terrible bar for “should we care about this issue”? Autocratic dictator of the world says “deciduous trees and the colour yellow are now banned, on pain of death”? Well, it's not guaranteed death for everyone, so why should I care?

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
I didn't say that you shouldn't care about it. I am saying that a 95th percentile negative outcome for climate change is still probably limited in its existential impact, not that you're gonna like it.

sammalloy 5y ago

Wet bulb temperature, clathrate gun, food web collapse, albedo decrease, dormant virus release from permafrost, increase of tropical disease, water scarcity, crop and livestock failure—that /is/ almost certainly guaranteed extinction for humanity. How is this even debatable? We are already on this path.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
But some groups of humans might survive, and might still have descendants tens of thousands of years later! It's not guaranteed that humanity goes extinct; we're pretty creative. (Though the same can't be said for a lot of other species.)
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Well, expert organizations like the IPCC produce reports on the expected impact of climate change, which don't include human extinction as even a worst-case possibility. I'm the last person who'd claim the experts are always right, but it's gotta be at least debatable.
- sammalloy 5y ago
  This problem was discussed by Pratt and Dunlop in their 2019 policy paper for the National Centre for Climate Restoration: > Climate scientists may err on the side of “least drama”, whose causes may include adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity and skepticism, and may underpredict or down-play future climate changes. In 2007, security analysts warned that, in the two previous decades, scientific predictions in the climate-change arena had consistently under-estimated the severity of what actually transpired. > This problem persists, notably in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Assessment Reports exhibit a one-sided reliance on general climate models, which incorporate important climate processes, but do not include all of the processes that can contribute to system feedbacks, compound extreme events, and abrupt and/or irreversible changes. > Other forms of knowledge are downplayed, including paleoclimatology, expert advice, and semi-empirical models. IPCC reports present detailed, quantified, complex modelling results, but then briefly note more severe, non-linear, system-change possibilities in a descriptive, non-quantified form. Because policymakers and the media are often drawn to headline numbers, this approach results in less attention being given to the most devastating, difficult-to-quantify outcomes. > In one example, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 projected a sea-level rise of 0.55-0.82 metre by 2100, but said “levels above the likely range cannot be reliably evaluated”. By way of comparison, the higher of two US Department of Defence scenarios is a two-metre rise by 2100, and the “extreme” scenario developed by a number of US government agencies is 2.5 metres by 2100. > Another example is the recent IPCC 1.5°C report, which projected that warming would continue at the current rate of ~0.2°C per decade and reach the 1.5°C mark around 2040. However the 1.5°C boundary is likely to be passed in half that time, around 2030, and the 2°C boundary around 2045, due to accelerating anthropogenic emissions, decreased aerosol loading and changing ocean circulation conditions.
  - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
    "adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity and skepticism" This is science. It's what science is made of. Abandon these and you abandon science altogether. Which is fine, I guess, but it has no connection to reality.
ThomPete 5y ago
these are not the certainties you think they are. You are confusing speculation with demonstration. Astroid hitting earth is a far bigger threat to humanity than any scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change. You are not on the scientific ground you think you are.
- sammalloy 5y ago
  Let's see, on the one hand we have climate change, the largest threat to humanity in this century, which is currently killing around 400,000 people a year and costing the world $1.2 trillion, impacting agricultural production, causing deaths from malnutrition, contributing to poverty, and increasing the incidence of disease. On the other hand, it is the opinion of astronomers that "no known asteroids currently pose any significant threat to Earth."
  - ThomPete 5y ago
    climate change is NOT the largest threat no matter how many times you repeat it. Astroids, suns exploding, super vulcanos etc these are actual potential extinction level events. Things that have actually been demonstrated to happen without human intervention. “No known” is what you are looking for. There are no known demonstrated consequences of climate change that we dont know how to deal with. More people are saved each year by human technology than die from it.
    - sammalloy 5y ago
      Climate change, caused by humans, is in fact the largest threat facing civilization at this time. And it will require human technology to mitigate it. You appear to making denialist arguments of some kind or another and changing the subject for some reason. There is currently no threat to humanity from asteroids, supernovae, supervolcanoes, or other types of existential risks. We know anthropogenic climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity at this time.
      - ThomPete 5y ago