8 ms·

> If humanity wants to stand a chance, Why is it so commonplace now to conflate climate change with basically armageddon? I thought that most models predict so

by badpun 4y ago

> If humanity wants to stand a chance, Why is it so commonplace now to conflate climate change with basically armageddon? I thought that most models predict some hard times (mass migrations and everything bad that comes with it), but species extinction (or even, civilization collapse) is still a fringe belief among the scientists.

ben_w 4y ago
While it is true that our species going extinct from climate change is extremely unlikely (even in the event of climate change leading to global thermonuclear war), and while I am also frustrated by binary thinking where everything is either "fine" or "disaster"[0], we are uncomfortably close to the lower estimate for the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, which would cause a 7.2 meter sea level rise, which is a massive disaster. [0] or indeed where everything is either "cold" or "hot", as someone recently posted here suggesting that global warming would solve the problem of EV batteries being too cold sometimes
- renjimen 4y ago
  Just to add some more detail, we estimate a maximum 2 m sea level rise by 2100 due to contributions from all glacier sources, including the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Ice Sheet, but more likely closer to 0.8 m [1]. That is still a large amount given ~400 million people live below 2 m [2], and most of those in developing parts of the world. [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1159099 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1159099 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/29/risk-from-sea-level-rises-unless-emissions-reduced https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/29/risk-fro...
harimau777 4y ago
Maybe it depends on what segment of society you are surrounded by? Most of my friends are barely hanging on (unhealthy/multiple jobs, multiple roommates, no kids, can't afford healthcare, etc.). So any decrease in quality of life would be a catastrophe.
radicalbyte 4y ago
> Why is it so commonplace now to conflate climate change with basically armageddon? As it will lead to war, likely between nations who have large arsenals of nuclear weapons. The Second World War will look cute compared to what will happen if we reach the 3-4 degree warming scenario's.
- polski-g 4y ago
  The nuclear armed nations have no reason to war against each other. But declaring war against nations who are """migrating""" (invading them)? Sure.
evr1isnxprt 4y ago
Scientists cannot accurately predict the behavior of millions and billions at long timescales.
- lordswork 4y ago
  What are you trying to say exactly?
  - evr1isnxprt 4y ago
    Comment I replied to suggested scientists do not currently see climate change as a human species extinction level event Modeling the future of a species of billions, many irrational actors, is too complicated to put my trust in scientists today. My MSc in math may be old now; maybe I’m getting the math wrong, but I don’t need a math degree to know every scientist is a fallible human and fallible humans often lie unintentionally or intentionally to keep the peace and maintain their paycheck. Who wants to be the scientist that is all “end of the world is coming.” Many “scientists” in industrial roles were complicit in keeping climate change evidence hidden since the 1860s. “Authority figures” is the dumbest social construct we cling to.
    - lordswork 4y ago
      Fortunately, we don't need to model every individual, just like we don't need to model every molecule in a pot of water to know when it will boil.
      - evr1isnxprt 4y ago
        False equivalence; we have a baseline for when water will boil due to years of experiment highlighting physical constraints. We have no baseline for human behavior after another 100 years of climate change. Future hasn’t happened yet, past experience is not viable as it lacked the new constraints of the future. There is evidence in biology that we go crazy after years of living in hot weather. The body heats is better than it cools us, and cooling us strains our systems. So perhaps it can be shown in some academic way our biology could literally survive the conditions, but they can’t predict how well humanity will actually deal with it; we may destroy ourselves over resource constraints or the wrong people going mad, launching the nukes out of paranoia. There are too many ways we can end ourselves to take the prediction “it won’t get too hot for the species to biologically survive” as evidence we won’t still destroy ourselves. Constraining the prediction only to that which they can have most confidence in undermines the accuracy of the model.
lordswork 4y ago
The hard times are already upon us and will only be getting worse within our lifetimes. The consensus is that things will be somewhere between really bad and catastrophic by 2100, depending on how much we reduce CO2e emissions and implement mitigation strategies globally[1]. So far, the lack of progress on reducing our dependence on oil and gas globally suggests we're on track for a more catastrophic scenario, i.e. somewhere between RCP4.5 and RCP 8.5 [2]. Also, there are many potential feedback loops that may put us on an irreversible course towards the planet becoming uninhabitable in the future [3]. There is still a lot of scientific debate about when we will hit these feedback loops and how significant they will be. Where you stand on this issue is often what separates the doomer climate scientists that think we're passed these tipping points from the optimist climate scientists that think it's still avoidable or the feedback loops will not be too significant. Most climate modeling focuses on the years of 2050 and 2100. What happens if we continue to make little progress by 2050 or 2100? As long as CO2e emissions are above net zero, warming will continue, and the effects will continue to get worse. Even if we do level-off CO2e emissions and stabilize at 2°C or 3°C, that temperature and all the extreme events, places that are no longer inhabitable, and lower crop yields that come with it will become the new norm, making life a lot harsher for future generations. [1]: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ [2]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >Also, there are many potential feedback loops that may put us on an irreversible course towards the planet becoming uninhabitable in the future This seems extremely overblown. The idea that the Earth will become "uninhabitable" seems ridiculous at best: the Earth has been "habitable" for literally billions of years, even when the climate was vastly different than it is now. And if you mean "habitable by humans" rather than "habitable by any lifeform", humans in particular have adapted to an extremely wide range of climates, from frozen tundra to middle eastern deserts. Perhaps you mean "habitable by 7-10 billion humans with today's civilization and level of technology and standard of living"? It's hard to imagine the Earth ever becoming completely uninhabitable by humans; someone will figure out a way to survive, no matter the catastrophe. But it won't be comfortable like today, and the planet probably won't support today's population levels.
clairity 4y ago
mediopolitical narrative is driving hard on this topic right now since covid left a void that ukraine can't fill (though they're trying, with the nuclear plant[0]). i'd support a framing around pollution, but not climate change. CO₂ (a gas that life co-evolved with and depends on) simply isn't our most important environmental issue. let's focus instead on pollution: CO, NOₓ, SO₂, VOCs (PAHs & petroleum hydrocarbons, phthalates, alcohols, aldehydes, terpenes, ketones, formaldehyde, etc.), lead, mercury, ozone, radon & other radioactive elements, fertilizers/pesticides, plastics, and especially particulates, which are things that kill millions of people right now, every year (not to mention all the harm to everyone else as well). the focus on climate change is fashion, but with a little tweak we can actually address impactful environmental problems instead. [0]: nuclear, by the way, has the potential to help significantly, principally by removing coal, our biggest categorical polluter, from the energy mix. incidentally, that would also measurably reduce CO₂ emissions.
- lordswork 4y ago
  >the focus on climate change is fashion, but with a little tweak we can actually address impactful environmental problems instead. Strongly disagree. Climate change is a much bigger threat in the short and long term than pollution itself. See my sibling comment for more on that. That said, it feels like a silly thing to argue about. We should be making efforts to reduce both general pollution and CO2 emissions. Fortunately, a lot of solutions in one area will benefit the other.
  - clairity 4y ago
    no, see, that's exactly the problem. CO₂ is a mediopolitical wedge issue designed to trap us in partisan gridlock, not bring meaningful change to the global population. that's why it's so fickle and formless, perfect for sowing discord, because it can be shaped in any number of desired directions. and it's clearly not threat to anyone living today and probably not for many generations to come, no matter what the 'trust the science' rhetoric claims. pollution, however, has been and will continue to kill millions of people every year. it has the potential to unite all sorts of factions (something vested interests fear) and actually make meaningful progress. CO₂ and climate change is a sideshow, but it's been brought front and center because it serves a powerful purpose for those vested interests. anyone jumping on the climate change train is only furthering those interests, rather than solving real problems. instead, we should focus on the actual problems like pollution, and discard the chosen mediopolitical narrative.
rekabis 4y ago
Because it is essentially Armageddon? Imagine a world where everything between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn is essentially uninhabitable due to consistently high Wet Bulb Temperatures. Right now, we have over 3 Billion people living in that band (40% of humanity), and about 30% of all commercial agriculture is done here. Bye-bye to both. Imagine a world where everything between the tropic of that hemisphere and the Arctic/Antarctic circle of that hemisphere has massively chaotic weather, such that commercial agriculture at any significant/effective scale is either impossible or produces utterly unreliable crops from one year to the next. This is where the other 5 Billion (60%) live, and where the other 70% of commercial agriculture is done. Humans could probably live here (although Wet Bulb temps would also make large chunks uninhabitable for parts of the year), but where will the consistent and reliable supply of food come from? Not this part of the world, that’s for sure. This leaves only the Arctic and Antarctic, which will be quite warm at this point, but has almost no topsoil (or even arable soil in the first place) worth mentioning, and could produce enough crops for only about 2-3% of current human populations. Now imagine the other 97% of humanity fighting tooth and nail for the right to subsist off of the consistent and reliable food supply from this agriculture-poor part of the planet. Most people who are starving and desperate will gladly shred and decimate infrastructure if it means that they can live another day. And this is the infrastructure that permits efficient, large-scale agriculture and distribution systems that can feed civilizational populations above the single-digit millions level. Sure, humanity will likely linger on for another century or two. But not as any sort of a serious technological society, nor in any significant numbers beyond the low millions.
pipodeclown 4y ago
Mass migration and everything that comes with it, would be extremely destebalising, most likely leading to another world war and potentially the collapse of modern civilisation. Sure it's unlikely that human kind will go extinct but this is the next best thing.

by badpun 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago

While it is true that our species going extinct from climate change is extremely unlikely (even in the event of climate change leading to global thermonuclear war), and while I am also frustrated by binary thinking where everything is either "fine" or "disaster"[0], we are uncomfortably close to the lower estimate for the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, which would cause a 7.2 meter sea level rise, which is a massive disaster. [0] or indeed where everything is either "cold" or "hot", as someone recently posted here suggesting that global warming would solve the problem of EV batteries being too cold sometimes

renjimen 4y ago
Just to add some more detail, we estimate a maximum 2 m sea level rise by 2100 due to contributions from all glacier sources, including the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Ice Sheet, but more likely closer to 0.8 m [1]. That is still a large amount given ~400 million people live below 2 m [2], and most of those in developing parts of the world. [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1159099 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1159099 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/29/risk-from-sea-level-rises-unless-emissions-reduced https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/29/risk-fro...

harimau777 4y ago

Maybe it depends on what segment of society you are surrounded by? Most of my friends are barely hanging on (unhealthy/multiple jobs, multiple roommates, no kids, can't afford healthcare, etc.). So any decrease in quality of life would be a catastrophe.

radicalbyte 4y ago

> Why is it so commonplace now to conflate climate change with basically armageddon? As it will lead to war, likely between nations who have large arsenals of nuclear weapons. The Second World War will look cute compared to what will happen if we reach the 3-4 degree warming scenario's.

polski-g 4y ago
The nuclear armed nations have no reason to war against each other. But declaring war against nations who are """migrating""" (invading them)? Sure.

evr1isnxprt 4y ago

Scientists cannot accurately predict the behavior of millions and billions at long timescales.

lordswork 4y ago
What are you trying to say exactly?
- evr1isnxprt 4y ago
  Comment I replied to suggested scientists do not currently see climate change as a human species extinction level event Modeling the future of a species of billions, many irrational actors, is too complicated to put my trust in scientists today. My MSc in math may be old now; maybe I’m getting the math wrong, but I don’t need a math degree to know every scientist is a fallible human and fallible humans often lie unintentionally or intentionally to keep the peace and maintain their paycheck. Who wants to be the scientist that is all “end of the world is coming.” Many “scientists” in industrial roles were complicit in keeping climate change evidence hidden since the 1860s. “Authority figures” is the dumbest social construct we cling to.
  - lordswork 4y ago
    Fortunately, we don't need to model every individual, just like we don't need to model every molecule in a pot of water to know when it will boil.
    - evr1isnxprt 4y ago
      False equivalence; we have a baseline for when water will boil due to years of experiment highlighting physical constraints. We have no baseline for human behavior after another 100 years of climate change. Future hasn’t happened yet, past experience is not viable as it lacked the new constraints of the future. There is evidence in biology that we go crazy after years of living in hot weather. The body heats is better than it cools us, and cooling us strains our systems. So perhaps it can be shown in some academic way our biology could literally survive the conditions, but they can’t predict how well humanity will actually deal with it; we may destroy ourselves over resource constraints or the wrong people going mad, launching the nukes out of paranoia. There are too many ways we can end ourselves to take the prediction “it won’t get too hot for the species to biologically survive” as evidence we won’t still destroy ourselves. Constraining the prediction only to that which they can have most confidence in undermines the accuracy of the model.

lordswork 4y ago

The hard times are already upon us and will only be getting worse within our lifetimes. The consensus is that things will be somewhere between really bad and catastrophic by 2100, depending on how much we reduce CO2e emissions and implement mitigation strategies globally[1]. So far, the lack of progress on reducing our dependence on oil and gas globally suggests we're on track for a more catastrophic scenario, i.e. somewhere between RCP4.5 and RCP 8.5 [2]. Also, there are many potential feedback loops that may put us on an irreversible course towards the planet becoming uninhabitable in the future [3]. There is still a lot of scientific debate about when we will hit these feedback loops and how significant they will be. Where you stand on this issue is often what separates the doomer climate scientists that think we're passed these tipping points from the optimist climate scientists that think it's still avoidable or the feedback loops will not be too significant. Most climate modeling focuses on the years of 2050 and 2100. What happens if we continue to make little progress by 2050 or 2100? As long as CO2e emissions are above net zero, warming will continue, and the effects will continue to get worse. Even if we do level-off CO2e emissions and stabilize at 2°C or 3°C, that temperature and all the extreme events, places that are no longer inhabitable, and lower crop yields that come with it will become the new norm, making life a lot harsher for future generations. [1]: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ [2]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

midoridensha 4y ago
>Also, there are many potential feedback loops that may put us on an irreversible course towards the planet becoming uninhabitable in the future This seems extremely overblown. The idea that the Earth will become "uninhabitable" seems ridiculous at best: the Earth has been "habitable" for literally billions of years, even when the climate was vastly different than it is now. And if you mean "habitable by humans" rather than "habitable by any lifeform", humans in particular have adapted to an extremely wide range of climates, from frozen tundra to middle eastern deserts. Perhaps you mean "habitable by 7-10 billion humans with today's civilization and level of technology and standard of living"? It's hard to imagine the Earth ever becoming completely uninhabitable by humans; someone will figure out a way to survive, no matter the catastrophe. But it won't be comfortable like today, and the planet probably won't support today's population levels.

clairity 4y ago

mediopolitical narrative is driving hard on this topic right now since covid left a void that ukraine can't fill (though they're trying, with the nuclear plant[0]). i'd support a framing around pollution, but not climate change. CO₂ (a gas that life co-evolved with and depends on) simply isn't our most important environmental issue. let's focus instead on pollution: CO, NOₓ, SO₂, VOCs (PAHs & petroleum hydrocarbons, phthalates, alcohols, aldehydes, terpenes, ketones, formaldehyde, etc.), lead, mercury, ozone, radon & other radioactive elements, fertilizers/pesticides, plastics, and especially particulates, which are things that kill millions of people right now, every year (not to mention all the harm to everyone else as well). the focus on climate change is fashion, but with a little tweak we can actually address impactful environmental problems instead. [0]: nuclear, by the way, has the potential to help significantly, principally by removing coal, our biggest categorical polluter, from the energy mix. incidentally, that would also measurably reduce CO₂ emissions.

lordswork 4y ago
>the focus on climate change is fashion, but with a little tweak we can actually address impactful environmental problems instead. Strongly disagree. Climate change is a much bigger threat in the short and long term than pollution itself. See my sibling comment for more on that. That said, it feels like a silly thing to argue about. We should be making efforts to reduce both general pollution and CO2 emissions. Fortunately, a lot of solutions in one area will benefit the other.
- clairity 4y ago
  no, see, that's exactly the problem. CO₂ is a mediopolitical wedge issue designed to trap us in partisan gridlock, not bring meaningful change to the global population. that's why it's so fickle and formless, perfect for sowing discord, because it can be shaped in any number of desired directions. and it's clearly not threat to anyone living today and probably not for many generations to come, no matter what the 'trust the science' rhetoric claims. pollution, however, has been and will continue to kill millions of people every year. it has the potential to unite all sorts of factions (something vested interests fear) and actually make meaningful progress. CO₂ and climate change is a sideshow, but it's been brought front and center because it serves a powerful purpose for those vested interests. anyone jumping on the climate change train is only furthering those interests, rather than solving real problems. instead, we should focus on the actual problems like pollution, and discard the chosen mediopolitical narrative.

rekabis 4y ago

Because it is essentially Armageddon? Imagine a world where everything between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn is essentially uninhabitable due to consistently high Wet Bulb Temperatures. Right now, we have over 3 Billion people living in that band (40% of humanity), and about 30% of all commercial agriculture is done here. Bye-bye to both. Imagine a world where everything between the tropic of that hemisphere and the Arctic/Antarctic circle of that hemisphere has massively chaotic weather, such that commercial agriculture at any significant/effective scale is either impossible or produces utterly unreliable crops from one year to the next. This is where the other 5 Billion (60%) live, and where the other 70% of commercial agriculture is done. Humans could probably live here (although Wet Bulb temps would also make large chunks uninhabitable for parts of the year), but where will the consistent and reliable supply of food come from? Not this part of the world, that’s for sure. This leaves only the Arctic and Antarctic, which will be quite warm at this point, but has almost no topsoil (or even arable soil in the first place) worth mentioning, and could produce enough crops for only about 2-3% of current human populations. Now imagine the other 97% of humanity fighting tooth and nail for the right to subsist off of the consistent and reliable food supply from this agriculture-poor part of the planet. Most people who are starving and desperate will gladly shred and decimate infrastructure if it means that they can live another day. And this is the infrastructure that permits efficient, large-scale agriculture and distribution systems that can feed civilizational populations above the single-digit millions level. Sure, humanity will likely linger on for another century or two. But not as any sort of a serious technological society, nor in any significant numbers beyond the low millions.

pipodeclown 4y ago

Mass migration and everything that comes with it, would be extremely destebalising, most likely leading to another world war and potentially the collapse of modern civilisation. Sure it's unlikely that human kind will go extinct but this is the next best thing.