5 ms·

Assume we hit 1.5C and "nothing happens" does this help the cause? While I'm very concerned about how unchecked climate change could impact future crop yields

by kypro 4y ago

Assume we hit 1.5C and "nothing happens" does this help the cause? While I'm very concerned about how unchecked climate change could impact future crop yields I also worry that having a hard line like this probably won't help convince anyone, and could counter intuitively act as a "I told you so" for climate denialists when the world doesn't fall apart as soon as we hit 1.5C. A lot of the more convincing arguments I hear from climate denialists (I hate that phase btw) is that past climate models have been highly inaccurate and many claims and concerns have in time been proven overstated. This is somewhat true. But here we are once again looking down on the masses and effectively saying, "you plebs just don't get it, this is your final warning before you all die". I think I'd rather the data was presented with less emotion and I think that would be more convincing personally, but at the same time I suspect we're probably going to have to see some dire consequences of climate change before any serious action is taken.

numbers_guy 4y ago
What the fuck do you even mean with "nothing happens", when the climate has been changing noticeably for the past decade already?
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    To be honest, majority of environmentalists don’t care to change our tone to make obvious concern trolls happy anymore. Nothing has worked and your condescending tone doesn’t help with anything either. Have you tried to reason with the average Q person? It’s not possible. Enjoy being depressed: https://old.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/hot https://old.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/hot
    - starkd 4y ago
      [flagged]
  - starkd 4y ago
    People generally do not respond to insults. It only takes a little imagination to see how you react when someone swears at you. Invert the situation. It is a basic empathy test that they fail.
  - numbers_guy 4y ago
    I am not trying to communicate anything; just reacting with absolute bewilderment at somebody who is so far removed from reality, that he seemingly has not stepped outside in the past decade.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  I know right? We’re seeing crop failure after crop failure. Whole ecosystems are collapsing. Tornados and floods are happening in places they had never happened in. Europe and the US are going to be impacted way later than everyone else other than the immigration wave they’re going to have to deal with. It’s a sick joke that the countries with the ability to do something about this are also going to be the last ones severely impacted.
  - sazz 4y ago
    China, USA, India, Russia - those are countries producing most of the CO2. Take those four countries and you have roughly half of the emissions. Do you really think China will change anything economical at all when Germany or Great Britian cripled themselves to death? Do you think Russia highest priority is the reduction of CO2?
    - myrmidon 4y ago
      China is currently at around European level in CO2/capita (~8tons CO2/capita/year). US is SIGNIFICANTLY worse by about a factor of two (~15tons CO2/capita/year). "The west" has currently pretty much ZERO moral standing when pushing for more drastic anti-CO2 policies in China and especially developing nations like India or Africa. This is not taking "exported" emissions into account and considering cumulative emissions draws an even more dire picture. "The ball is in China/India/Russias court, not much we can do now" is such blatant hypocrisy it still sickens me every time I encounter it. Please don't spread it.
      - sazz 4y ago
        You cannot solve a puzzle by picking out one piece. You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming that everyone else will follow. That is short-sighted thinking. A per capita figure may play a role in politics in negotiations, but it is not relevant for solving the problem. It is like accusing a Norwegian living in a fjord of wasting water. For example, it is completely irrelevant how high the per capita consumption of an Icelander is. Or a Greenlander. Because it doesn't solve the problem. Yes, the US has a higher consumption. But it's just 334 million inhabitants vs 1,440 million in China (which still puts America in the top five, but far behind China). If you really want to solve the problem then you need to develop a practical solution for China. But let me ask you a question: Let's imagine that everything is suddenly perfect in your country. The economy has suffered brutally because of all the changes, but you are now the world leader in CO2 per capita consumption. What do you think happens then?
missedthecue 4y ago
I've read studies which conclude that climate change improves crop yields because carbon is an input to photosynthesis -- often the bottleneck. In addition, global warming frees up more arable land. After all, there is far more landmass in the northern hemisphere than at or around the equator. The net result is that some land become intolerable in certain areas and a lot of land becomes newly arable in other areas.
- defrost 4y ago
  Many of those studies also conclude "more plant, less food", or: Temperature is not the only factor the models consider when simulating future crop yields. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a positive effect on photosynthesis and water retention, increasing crop yields, though often at a cost to nutrition. and Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase some crop yields in some places. But to realize these benefits, nutrient levels, soil moisture, water availability, and other conditions must also be met. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-imp... https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897 https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop... https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-im... Here (W.Australia) we're busy trialing many wheat (and other) varieties for future use but its better to deal with AGW by reducing C02 (and methane and water vapor) in the atmosphere than by soft selling adaption. Over threshold things are predicted to tip and get uncontrollably worse.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    Water availability, soil nutrients, and moisture are variables farmers can control. Atmospheric carbon levels are not, so while that caveat is important to keep in mind from an agricultural science perspective, it will still result in higher yields of quality food.
    - 4y ago
burkaman 4y ago
Can you quote something from the report that you feel was overly emotional?
- zug_zug 4y ago
  Well I think climate change is objective fact, but this link is wildly emotional. "Final Warning" "act now or it's too late" sounds like a late-night infomercial selling me something. If I were running the report I'd try to write it in a manner that is scientific and thus emotionally indifferent to every outcome. Science doesn't care whether any special dies or not (humans or not). If you can't look at climate science with an indifference to the death of the species, you probably can't run statistics neutrally, which gives a lot of room for doubt (fair or not).
  - burkaman 4y ago
    If you want to criticize this article that's fine, but you are blaming the IPCC authors for this Guardian reporter's phrasing. If you read the report you'll find it was written in a scientific and objective manner, and as emotionless as possible while using human language. You will probably find it boring to read even the extremely shortened "Summary for Policymakers". https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf The associated press release uses stronger language, but it still pretty objective if you accept the emotional axiom that "avoiding death and destruction is good". https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/press/IPCC_AR6_SYR_PressRelease_en.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/press/IPCC_AR6_...
johnnymorgan 4y ago
Did they mention their regulations that is attempting to destroy crop yields, ie limit inputs, is the reason crop yields will drop and that the extra carbon in the atmo has been an inconvenient truth it's helped offset that... The talking down to people, coupled with hyperbolic dialogue has just fatigued everyone on this file. I think climate activism is total shit and ignores all the environmental damage that goes along with it.
tito 4y ago
Yeah the headlines end up all sounding similar after awhile. Another challenge is the report itself is pretty dry and emotionless (for example, every line of the PDF is numbered). Here's a link to the new Synthesis report referenced in the article: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ Here's the "summary for policymakers": https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
tgv 4y ago
> A lot of the more convincing arguments I hear from climate denialists (I hate that phase btw) is that past climate models have been highly inaccurate and many claims and concerns have in time been proven overstated. That's such a trite reply. First, we can take it literal. Yes, models have been inaccurate, and this one will be too. The trend is unmistakably there, though. You can check the bloody weather outside to see for yourself. Do you want to bet your life that the estimate is too high this time? Second, we can take it less literal. They simply mean they don't want to move. They don't take it seriously. They don't care. Nothing in the world short of an immediate disaster in their direct environment is going to change their "opinion". And even then some will claim it's a freak accident. Don't take these arguments as if they have the same weight. Do you want to bet your life and the lives of the ones you and we love?
- kypro 4y ago
  I agree with everything you're saying. I tend to operate with two mental modals because I believe a lot of these divides can be explained by differing educational levels and intellectual abilities. I think you need to put yourself in the headspace of a 90 IQ dude who has been told his entire adult life that the world is going to end because of climate change. To him the fact that there was snow the other day and the world hasn't yet come to an end is actually a convincing argument that the Earth isn't getting so hot that he needs to be concerned. Similarly, while this hypothetical person might not be intelligent enough to understand that scientific models are always going to have some level of inaccuracy and there is always some amount of noise in the data, they are intelligent enough to recognise that in the past false claims have been made – and often these claims have been made in a condescending manner. We've seen similar divides and misunderstandings with Trump, Brexit and the pandemic. We need to find better ways to communicate across social divides – that's what I was appealing to. We have to do a better job at presenting data in a way that's accessible to every while also not being so condescending and overly opinionated that it's off putting to those who remain unconvinced. Or put another way, a climate denialist isn't going to be convinced by you telling them they're an idiot for not understanding how to analyse the data correctly (even if you're correct). You instead have to recognise the merits of their perspective and try to explain the data in a way that will allow them (hopefully) to come to the correct conclusions. But like I say, I don't know if this is even possible with climate change. A lot of people I'm referring to here think with their eyes and if they can't see the truth in their own life experiences, and with their own eyes, then they're sceptical of it. Climate change for lots of reasons is unfortunately one of those things that's really difficult to explain to someone who sees snow as evidence of that the Earth isn't getting hotter, but these are the people we ultimately need to convince. > Do you want to bet your life and the lives of the ones you and we love? No. That's why I'm saying please stop with the alarmism. It doesn't convince anyone and just causes unhelpful ideological divides.
starkd 4y ago
[flagged]
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> we're probably going to have to see some dire consequences of climate change before any serious action is taken. Is it your position that there have been no serious consequences of climate change to date? That's not factual.
mrmanner 4y ago
The problem here is that we just aren’t cut out to understand delayed consequences. The society we build today decided co2 levels tens of years into the future, affecting temperature for yet more years into the future, affecting society for very long time. One effect of this is that consequences may be locked in long before we see them. Propagandists love to exploit this by saying things like “there’s still time - just look at all the snow”.
- mrmanner 4y ago
  Another interesting thing: one of many reasons behind the “hard line” at 1.5 degrees is that this is the level of warming were models and simulations of consequences have reasonable certainty. Beyond that level there are more unknowns and more less certainty. So 1.5 degrees should be an important target if good models are important. But, it turns out, certainty isn’t what we’re after.
specialist 4y ago
> I'd rather the data was presented with less emotion "Intellectually, progress could be okay. But you're doing it wrong."

by kypro 4y ago

numbers_guy 4y ago

What the fuck do you even mean with "nothing happens", when the climate has been changing noticeably for the past decade already?

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
[flagged]
- aaomidi 4y ago
  To be honest, majority of environmentalists don’t care to change our tone to make obvious concern trolls happy anymore. Nothing has worked and your condescending tone doesn’t help with anything either. Have you tried to reason with the average Q person? It’s not possible. Enjoy being depressed: https://old.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/hot https://old.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/hot
  - starkd 4y ago
    [flagged]
- starkd 4y ago
  People generally do not respond to insults. It only takes a little imagination to see how you react when someone swears at you. Invert the situation. It is a basic empathy test that they fail.
- numbers_guy 4y ago
  I am not trying to communicate anything; just reacting with absolute bewilderment at somebody who is so far removed from reality, that he seemingly has not stepped outside in the past decade.
aaomidi 4y ago
I know right? We’re seeing crop failure after crop failure. Whole ecosystems are collapsing. Tornados and floods are happening in places they had never happened in. Europe and the US are going to be impacted way later than everyone else other than the immigration wave they’re going to have to deal with. It’s a sick joke that the countries with the ability to do something about this are also going to be the last ones severely impacted.
- sazz 4y ago
  China, USA, India, Russia - those are countries producing most of the CO2. Take those four countries and you have roughly half of the emissions. Do you really think China will change anything economical at all when Germany or Great Britian cripled themselves to death? Do you think Russia highest priority is the reduction of CO2?
  - myrmidon 4y ago
    China is currently at around European level in CO2/capita (~8tons CO2/capita/year). US is SIGNIFICANTLY worse by about a factor of two (~15tons CO2/capita/year). "The west" has currently pretty much ZERO moral standing when pushing for more drastic anti-CO2 policies in China and especially developing nations like India or Africa. This is not taking "exported" emissions into account and considering cumulative emissions draws an even more dire picture. "The ball is in China/India/Russias court, not much we can do now" is such blatant hypocrisy it still sickens me every time I encounter it. Please don't spread it.
    - sazz 4y ago
      You cannot solve a puzzle by picking out one piece. You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming that everyone else will follow. That is short-sighted thinking. A per capita figure may play a role in politics in negotiations, but it is not relevant for solving the problem. It is like accusing a Norwegian living in a fjord of wasting water. For example, it is completely irrelevant how high the per capita consumption of an Icelander is. Or a Greenlander. Because it doesn't solve the problem. Yes, the US has a higher consumption. But it's just 334 million inhabitants vs 1,440 million in China (which still puts America in the top five, but far behind China). If you really want to solve the problem then you need to develop a practical solution for China. But let me ask you a question: Let's imagine that everything is suddenly perfect in your country. The economy has suffered brutally because of all the changes, but you are now the world leader in CO2 per capita consumption. What do you think happens then?

missedthecue 4y ago

I've read studies which conclude that climate change improves crop yields because carbon is an input to photosynthesis -- often the bottleneck. In addition, global warming frees up more arable land. After all, there is far more landmass in the northern hemisphere than at or around the equator. The net result is that some land become intolerable in certain areas and a lot of land becomes newly arable in other areas.

defrost 4y ago
Many of those studies also conclude "more plant, less food", or: Temperature is not the only factor the models consider when simulating future crop yields. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a positive effect on photosynthesis and water retention, increasing crop yields, though often at a cost to nutrition. and Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase some crop yields in some places. But to realize these benefits, nutrient levels, soil moisture, water availability, and other conditions must also be met. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-imp... https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897 https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop... https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-im... Here (W.Australia) we're busy trialing many wheat (and other) varieties for future use but its better to deal with AGW by reducing C02 (and methane and water vapor) in the atmosphere than by soft selling adaption. Over threshold things are predicted to tip and get uncontrollably worse.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Water availability, soil nutrients, and moisture are variables farmers can control. Atmospheric carbon levels are not, so while that caveat is important to keep in mind from an agricultural science perspective, it will still result in higher yields of quality food.
  - 4y ago

burkaman 4y ago

Can you quote something from the report that you feel was overly emotional?

zug_zug 4y ago
Well I think climate change is objective fact, but this link is wildly emotional. "Final Warning" "act now or it's too late" sounds like a late-night infomercial selling me something. If I were running the report I'd try to write it in a manner that is scientific and thus emotionally indifferent to every outcome. Science doesn't care whether any special dies or not (humans or not). If you can't look at climate science with an indifference to the death of the species, you probably can't run statistics neutrally, which gives a lot of room for doubt (fair or not).
- burkaman 4y ago
  If you want to criticize this article that's fine, but you are blaming the IPCC authors for this Guardian reporter's phrasing. If you read the report you'll find it was written in a scientific and objective manner, and as emotionless as possible while using human language. You will probably find it boring to read even the extremely shortened "Summary for Policymakers". https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf The associated press release uses stronger language, but it still pretty objective if you accept the emotional axiom that "avoiding death and destruction is good". https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/press/IPCC_AR6_SYR_PressRelease_en.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/press/IPCC_AR6_...

johnnymorgan 4y ago

Did they mention their regulations that is attempting to destroy crop yields, ie limit inputs, is the reason crop yields will drop and that the extra carbon in the atmo has been an inconvenient truth it's helped offset that... The talking down to people, coupled with hyperbolic dialogue has just fatigued everyone on this file. I think climate activism is total shit and ignores all the environmental damage that goes along with it.

tito 4y ago

Yeah the headlines end up all sounding similar after awhile. Another challenge is the report itself is pretty dry and emotionless (for example, every line of the PDF is numbered). Here's a link to the new Synthesis report referenced in the article: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ Here's the "summary for policymakers": https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

tgv 4y ago

> A lot of the more convincing arguments I hear from climate denialists (I hate that phase btw) is that past climate models have been highly inaccurate and many claims and concerns have in time been proven overstated. That's such a trite reply. First, we can take it literal. Yes, models have been inaccurate, and this one will be too. The trend is unmistakably there, though. You can check the bloody weather outside to see for yourself. Do you want to bet your life that the estimate is too high this time? Second, we can take it less literal. They simply mean they don't want to move. They don't take it seriously. They don't care. Nothing in the world short of an immediate disaster in their direct environment is going to change their "opinion". And even then some will claim it's a freak accident. Don't take these arguments as if they have the same weight. Do you want to bet your life and the lives of the ones you and we love?

kypro 4y ago
I agree with everything you're saying. I tend to operate with two mental modals because I believe a lot of these divides can be explained by differing educational levels and intellectual abilities. I think you need to put yourself in the headspace of a 90 IQ dude who has been told his entire adult life that the world is going to end because of climate change. To him the fact that there was snow the other day and the world hasn't yet come to an end is actually a convincing argument that the Earth isn't getting so hot that he needs to be concerned. Similarly, while this hypothetical person might not be intelligent enough to understand that scientific models are always going to have some level of inaccuracy and there is always some amount of noise in the data, they are intelligent enough to recognise that in the past false claims have been made – and often these claims have been made in a condescending manner. We've seen similar divides and misunderstandings with Trump, Brexit and the pandemic. We need to find better ways to communicate across social divides – that's what I was appealing to. We have to do a better job at presenting data in a way that's accessible to every while also not being so condescending and overly opinionated that it's off putting to those who remain unconvinced. Or put another way, a climate denialist isn't going to be convinced by you telling them they're an idiot for not understanding how to analyse the data correctly (even if you're correct). You instead have to recognise the merits of their perspective and try to explain the data in a way that will allow them (hopefully) to come to the correct conclusions. But like I say, I don't know if this is even possible with climate change. A lot of people I'm referring to here think with their eyes and if they can't see the truth in their own life experiences, and with their own eyes, then they're sceptical of it. Climate change for lots of reasons is unfortunately one of those things that's really difficult to explain to someone who sees snow as evidence of that the Earth isn't getting hotter, but these are the people we ultimately need to convince. > Do you want to bet your life and the lives of the ones you and we love? No. That's why I'm saying please stop with the alarmism. It doesn't convince anyone and just causes unhelpful ideological divides.

starkd 4y ago

[flagged]

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> we're probably going to have to see some dire consequences of climate change before any serious action is taken. Is it your position that there have been no serious consequences of climate change to date? That's not factual.

mrmanner 4y ago

The problem here is that we just aren’t cut out to understand delayed consequences. The society we build today decided co2 levels tens of years into the future, affecting temperature for yet more years into the future, affecting society for very long time. One effect of this is that consequences may be locked in long before we see them. Propagandists love to exploit this by saying things like “there’s still time - just look at all the snow”.

mrmanner 4y ago
Another interesting thing: one of many reasons behind the “hard line” at 1.5 degrees is that this is the level of warming were models and simulations of consequences have reasonable certainty. Beyond that level there are more unknowns and more less certainty. So 1.5 degrees should be an important target if good models are important. But, it turns out, certainty isn’t what we’re after.

specialist 4y ago

> I'd rather the data was presented with less emotion "Intellectually, progress could be okay. But you're doing it wrong."