4 ms·

We are nowhere near exaggerating it. We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to ben

We are nowhere near exaggerating it. We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to benefits ratio. But current policies are aiming at 1.5 degree higher than what we evaluated as the optimal solution.

tonguez 5y ago
no one who is struggling to survive gives a shit. maybe if wealth were distributed more evenly you could get more people on board to care about this.
- Isinlor 5y ago
  The poorest people will be hit the hardest. EU and USA will find it relatively easier to adjust given our location and overall wealth.
phkahler 5y ago
>> We are nowhere near exaggerating it. If you want to talk about the "climate crisis", I'm going to keep pointing to the lack of good modeling in regard to water vapor and air travel (which has a specific phase relationship with sunshine that must be taken into account). I'll also try to dig up that graph correlating the rise in air travel with temperatures. I'll insist that even if I accept human cause of these changes (which I'm willing to do), it is reasonably likely due to air travel and you can't show otherwise without those models.
- ShamelessC 5y ago
  In general, when you think you have evidence supporting your case it's a good idea to go ahead and just use it rather than talking about how you plan to use it.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    It comes across as less adversarial this way. Here's a fluff piece: https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set... Something better, but need to follow references: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201... The jury is still out on this and it seems to have a large effect and can do so in a very short time (on the order of days).
- adrianN 5y ago
  The lack of good modelling is no reason to do less to reduce emissions. Poor modelling can mean that the problem is worse than the models predict. Every time we improve our models the predictions seem to get worse.
throwaway5752 5y ago
So far we are grossly understating it to avoid mass panic, is my guess. If people all really understood the impact and timeframes, society would fall apart.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
It's not "simple" though, because this affects a lot of people's lives. I mean we're already experiencing what happens when fossil fuels get cut off; record price hikes, record inflation, and it'll have a knock-on effect for years to come. Of course, this translates to democracy; if a sitting government decided to, for example, force a whole industry to shut down, do you think the people working in that industry would vote for the same party again? I mean granted, this issue is bigger than sitting parties and votes and I'm sure some are willing to sacrifice their political career - or the lives and livelihoods of civilians - for it, but you get what I mean.
incomingpain 5y ago
>We are nowhere near exaggerating it. https://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387 https://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-ho... A second! We are basically in a nuclear holocaust of epic proportions and this is nowhere near exaggerating it.

tonguez 5y ago

no one who is struggling to survive gives a shit. maybe if wealth were distributed more evenly you could get more people on board to care about this.

Isinlor 5y ago
The poorest people will be hit the hardest. EU and USA will find it relatively easier to adjust given our location and overall wealth.

phkahler 5y ago

>> We are nowhere near exaggerating it. If you want to talk about the "climate crisis", I'm going to keep pointing to the lack of good modeling in regard to water vapor and air travel (which has a specific phase relationship with sunshine that must be taken into account). I'll also try to dig up that graph correlating the rise in air travel with temperatures. I'll insist that even if I accept human cause of these changes (which I'm willing to do), it is reasonably likely due to air travel and you can't show otherwise without those models.

ShamelessC 5y ago
In general, when you think you have evidence supporting your case it's a good idea to go ahead and just use it rather than talking about how you plan to use it.
- phkahler 5y ago
  It comes across as less adversarial this way. Here's a fluff piece: https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set... Something better, but need to follow references: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201... The jury is still out on this and it seems to have a large effect and can do so in a very short time (on the order of days).
adrianN 5y ago
The lack of good modelling is no reason to do less to reduce emissions. Poor modelling can mean that the problem is worse than the models predict. Every time we improve our models the predictions seem to get worse.

throwaway5752 5y ago

So far we are grossly understating it to avoid mass panic, is my guess. If people all really understood the impact and timeframes, society would fall apart.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

It's not "simple" though, because this affects a lot of people's lives. I mean we're already experiencing what happens when fossil fuels get cut off; record price hikes, record inflation, and it'll have a knock-on effect for years to come. Of course, this translates to democracy; if a sitting government decided to, for example, force a whole industry to shut down, do you think the people working in that industry would vote for the same party again? I mean granted, this issue is bigger than sitting parties and votes and I'm sure some are willing to sacrifice their political career - or the lives and livelihoods of civilians - for it, but you get what I mean.

incomingpain 5y ago

>We are nowhere near exaggerating it. https://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387 https://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-ho... A second! We are basically in a nuclear holocaust of epic proportions and this is nowhere near exaggerating it.