3 ms·

I've listened to a podcast recently [0] that describes climate change as a definite problem, but not the civilization killer it is described as. Frankly, I don

by tra3 5y ago

I've listened to a podcast recently [0] that describes climate change as a definite problem, but not the civilization killer it is described as. Frankly, I don't know enough about this to evaluate the problem critically. Some of the points that were made, that I thought were interesting: - climate kills very few people currently. - way more people die in "cold waves" than "heat waves". - we spend way more money on heating now, rather than cooling. This will have to change obviously. - hotter climate will encourage food production. - a economic analysis (need to find the reference) was done projecting climate change impact and apparently, it's minuscule. On the order of 5% by 2100. Global wealth is projected to increase by over 300% during this time. - so called "developing nations" have no money to move to alternative energy sources. Some things that were not addressed, that I'm specifically curious about, living in a coastal area, is sea level rise. I must admit that part of the reason I found this podcast so compelling is that the interview implies that while it's a real problem that has to be addressed, it's not, like I said a civilization killer. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSvR1jw3ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSvR1jw3ME

Thrymr 5y ago
OK, we've got hundreds of scientists from 65 countries who spent years compiling a rigorous 2900 page report on one side, and on the other, a podcast. If you are genuinely seeking the data and arguments on the issues, please at least read the executive and technical summaries of the report, here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
- tra3 5y ago
  I don't think there's any argument about data; but certainly the interpretation. Thanks for the link, I'll try to make my way through the "policy maker" one. The reason I made the post was to get some critical feedback on the podcast. I'm curious, how much of the report have you read yourself?
  - Thrymr 5y ago
    > I'm curious, how much of the report have you read yourself? I have not read this one yet, but I make a point of trying to read the summaries of IPCC reports before getting into arguments about it. They are impressive documents, even though written by giant committee.
hh3k0 5y ago
> - climate kills very few people currently. "Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually." https://web.archive.org/web/20220302105033/https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220302105033/https://www.who.i... > - hotter climate will encourage food production. "By the 2040s, the probability of a 10 per cent yield loss, or greater, within the top four maize producing countries (the US, China, Brazil and Argentina) rises to between 40 and 70 per cent. These countries currently account for 87 per cent of the world’s maize exports. The probability of a synchronous, greater than 10 per cent crop failure across all four countries during the 2040s is just less than 50 per cent." https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/climate-change-risk-assessment-2021 https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/climate-change-risk-ass... > - a economic analysis (need to find the reference) was done projecting climate change impact and apparently, it's minuscule. On the order of 5% by 2100. Global wealth is projected to increase by over 300% during this time. "By mid-century, the world stands to lose around 10% of total economic value from climate change. That is a real scenario if temperature increases stay on the current trajectory, and both the Paris Agreement and 2050 net-zero emissions targets are not met, according to new Swiss Re Institute research." https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-d... > - so called "developing nations" have no money to move to alternative energy sources. The so-called developed nations can help with that transition, though. Many so-called developing nations have plenty of sun available to them, for example.
- tra3 5y ago
  Thanks for the links I'll take a look. I found the GDP impact paper referred to in the podcast: > While climate scientists warn that climate change could be catastrophic, economists such as 2018 Nobel prize winner William Nordhaus assert that it will be nowhere near as damaging. In a 2018 paper published after he was awarded the prize, Nordhaus claimed that 3°C of warming would reduce global GDP by just 2.1%, compared to what it would be in the total absence of climate change. Even a 6°C increase in global temperature, he claimed, would reduce GDP by just 8.5%. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus... https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-09-10/nobel-prize-winning-economics-of-climate-change-is-misleading-and-dangerous-heres-why/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-09-10/nobel-prize-wi...

by tra3 5y ago

Thrymr 5y ago

OK, we've got hundreds of scientists from 65 countries who spent years compiling a rigorous 2900 page report on one side, and on the other, a podcast. If you are genuinely seeking the data and arguments on the issues, please at least read the executive and technical summaries of the report, here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

tra3 5y ago
I don't think there's any argument about data; but certainly the interpretation. Thanks for the link, I'll try to make my way through the "policy maker" one. The reason I made the post was to get some critical feedback on the podcast. I'm curious, how much of the report have you read yourself?
- Thrymr 5y ago
  > I'm curious, how much of the report have you read yourself? I have not read this one yet, but I make a point of trying to read the summaries of IPCC reports before getting into arguments about it. They are impressive documents, even though written by giant committee.

hh3k0 5y ago

> - climate kills very few people currently. "Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually." https://web.archive.org/web/20220302105033/https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220302105033/https://www.who.i... > - hotter climate will encourage food production. "By the 2040s, the probability of a 10 per cent yield loss, or greater, within the top four maize producing countries (the US, China, Brazil and Argentina) rises to between 40 and 70 per cent. These countries currently account for 87 per cent of the world’s maize exports. The probability of a synchronous, greater than 10 per cent crop failure across all four countries during the 2040s is just less than 50 per cent." https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/climate-change-risk-assessment-2021 https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/climate-change-risk-ass... > - a economic analysis (need to find the reference) was done projecting climate change impact and apparently, it's minuscule. On the order of 5% by 2100. Global wealth is projected to increase by over 300% during this time. "By mid-century, the world stands to lose around 10% of total economic value from climate change. That is a real scenario if temperature increases stay on the current trajectory, and both the Paris Agreement and 2050 net-zero emissions targets are not met, according to new Swiss Re Institute research." https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-d... > - so called "developing nations" have no money to move to alternative energy sources. The so-called developed nations can help with that transition, though. Many so-called developing nations have plenty of sun available to them, for example.

tra3 5y ago
Thanks for the links I'll take a look. I found the GDP impact paper referred to in the podcast: > While climate scientists warn that climate change could be catastrophic, economists such as 2018 Nobel prize winner William Nordhaus assert that it will be nowhere near as damaging. In a 2018 paper published after he was awarded the prize, Nordhaus claimed that 3°C of warming would reduce global GDP by just 2.1%, compared to what it would be in the total absence of climate change. Even a 6°C increase in global temperature, he claimed, would reduce GDP by just 8.5%. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus... https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-09-10/nobel-prize-winning-economics-of-climate-change-is-misleading-and-dangerous-heres-why/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-09-10/nobel-prize-wi...