12 ms·

I do wish someone would just acknowledge we’ve been getting “final warnings” as well as predictions of catastrophe every few years for decades now. Just recogni

by fwlr 4y ago

I do wish someone would just acknowledge we’ve been getting “final warnings” as well as predictions of catastrophe every few years for decades now. Just recognize that I have to force myself quite hard to take this seriously. I do trust the science! But I trusted the science in 2017 and in 2012 and in 2009 and in 2004 and in 2000 and so on. I am making myself trust the science this time, again, and selfishly I would just like that extra effort validated.

ddgflorida 4y ago
I lived through the 70s with dire warning of overpopulation and pollution killing us all. It's very difficult to predict the future and scientists has failed miserably in this area. An economist will out-predict a scientist any day.
davesque 4y ago
I'm with you on this. And I am absolutely the furthest possible thing from a climate skeptic. If anything, it's just a recognition that this kind of communication from official sources is clearly ineffective. The climate crisis is never ever going to be solved by spontaneous collective action or by appeals to collective action. People will continue to do whatever it is they have to do to get their daily or yearly basic needs met. What we need are people in positions of power that care.
- lisasays 4y ago
  What we need are people in positions of power that care. Okay then - so how do we get those people to materialize? Absent "appeals to collective action" which you've already determined is never going to work.
- myrmidon 4y ago
  In a democracy, this means that people in aggregate need to care more about climate change consequences in the future than wealth/disposable income right now. That is simply a hard sell, always has been, and most of us are to blame for the consequences...
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Specially hard to sell when those in power don't seem to treat is as existential crisis that will kill them. I do not see them following their own messaging to utmost care.
    - myrmidon 4y ago
      I think its dishonest to shift all blame on "people in power" when living in a democracy. It seems pretty clear to me that specifically US policy would have been MUCH more climate focussed if people had voted like 60% Al-Gore in 2000 (who ran 100% on that platform). But that option was basically on the table, people went like "meh, might as well take generic republican junior instead" and then got distracted by counter-jihad for the decade after. Now most of the damage is already done, and the same things that would've really helped in 2000 are much less useful now because they're late. And its not like Europeans did much better in the meantime, but they at least have the excuse that their baseline emissions are about half US level already (per capita) and governance is more fractured (by design), too...
time_to_smile 4y ago
We have been getting warnings like this for years and for years things have been getting visibly worse. I don't know how you "have to force myself quite hard to take this seriously" when the environment around us has been degrading faster than scientist have been claiming for years. Maybe you're confused by how events related to climate catastrophe unfold? It's not like a nuclear bomb where one day everything is fine, then the next every thing is gone. That case is different in two major ways: the break down is instantaneous and a new normal is almost immediately established. The final warning for climate is about a process that once started can no longer be stopped. You don't have to "trust the science", you can literally watch it happen as the arctic heads rapidly towards a blue ocean event (see "arctic death spiral"), crop failures have been increasing, California has suffered extreme years of drought followed by this current season of incredible floods, lake mead reaches a lower level than it has since it was filled, Texas is subjected to extreme weather (in both directions) causing year after year failure of the power grid. These things will continue to happen, will happen more frequently and at greater magnitude for the rest of your life. If you feel unconvinced it's because you're in a state of denial (which in part of grieving so not terribly surprising or uncommon).
- fwlr 4y ago
  I don’t feel unconvinced - which is a good thing, because if I did, the suggestion that it would be because I’m some psychological stage of grief would probably feel patronizing or dismissive. “the environment around us has been degrading faster than scientist have been claiming for years.” But not faster than science reporting has been claiming, since they have pretty reliably been claiming apocalypse in 5-10 years for 60 years now.
  - time_to_smile 4y ago
    Well the real truth is they were right 60 years ago. That was probably our last realistic chance to avoid catastrophe. But we did nothing and as much as doom and gloom might sell newspapers, true despair does not. Every article since they has made use of increasingly unrealistic solutions to create the illusions that there is more time. And again, the "apocalypse" is not a single day's event in the case of climate change. Given that fossil fuel usage continues to climb as well as CO2 (and now methane) emissions it's clear we have chosen the worst case path. The only limiting factor is how much hydrocarbons we can suck out of the ground. We have committed to destruction of our ecosystem and transformation of the biosphere in ways not seen in millions of years on this planet. You don't need to read the news, you can just look at outside and watch it continue to happen at an escalating rate for the rest of your life.
yamtaddle 4y ago
We'll keep getting "final warnings" as we pass "realistic hope of keeping warming under X" and "a sliver of hope for keeping warming under X if a literal miracle occurs" thresholds for different warming levels. The next major report like this will probably have a best-case scenario of more like 2.0C. We're at "a sliver of hope if a literal miracle occurs" for 1.5C (realistic hope of keeping it that low was probably gone a decade ago, and you may have seen that shift reflected in earlier reports) and have passed similar thresholds for 1.0C already.
- fwlr 4y ago
  All I can take from this comment is there are several likelihood thresholds and an array of future Celsius values which can be combined to generate arbitrarily many “final warnings”. Sigh.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    We're terribly sorry the reality is a bit more complex and doesn't conform to your mental model of an "if then" statement.
    - fwlr 4y ago
      If you read my original comment more closely you’ll see I have no trouble with the complexity of the reality of climate change, and what I am taking issue with is the annoying method of communication of predictions about that reality, communication that resembles nothing so much as systematized crying wolf. I’m not even asking for it to stop, or threatening to spitefully disbelieve in climate change because of it, I’m just asking for it to be served with a spoonful of kindness. I don’t have anything productive or polite to say about you misinterpreting my comment as climate denial and then mocking me for having a simplistic mental model.
      - antisthenes 4y ago
        > I don’t have anything productive or polite to say about you misinterpreting my comment as climate denial It's good to know you've at least returned the favor in misinterpreting my comment in kind. > what I am taking issue with is the annoying method of communication of predictions about that reality, communication that resembles nothing so much as systematized crying wolf. I’m not even asking for it to stop, or threatening to spitefully disbelieve in climate change because of it, I’m just asking for it to be served with a spoonful of kindness. And this is extremely petty and ludicrous. Get past the communication methods and look at the core of the problem. If someone can't do that, then I have nothing to offer them but mockery. This is not directed at you personally (just in case you misinterpret my comment again)
raffraffraff 4y ago
> Everyone keeps saying the water is getting hotter! I trust the thermometer I really do! It just doesn't feel like it's getting hotter to me! - the slow-boiling frog
- fwlr 4y ago
  Your comment seems to imply I am a stealth climate change denier of some kind. That is wrong. If you must put me in some category of ignorance, I suppose you could call me a “climate change alarmist ignorer“.
myrmidon 4y ago
I'm not sure what your expectations are? IMO the situation is that mainstream science said categorically since before 1990 that CO2 emissions lead to unpleasant outcomes, and gives periodic updates on how the world in aggregate is mostly doing worse then planned in emissions and adds some detail to the predicted resulting consequences. What would you expect from science and science reporting instead?

by fwlr 4y ago

ddgflorida 4y ago

I lived through the 70s with dire warning of overpopulation and pollution killing us all. It's very difficult to predict the future and scientists has failed miserably in this area. An economist will out-predict a scientist any day.

davesque 4y ago

I'm with you on this. And I am absolutely the furthest possible thing from a climate skeptic. If anything, it's just a recognition that this kind of communication from official sources is clearly ineffective. The climate crisis is never ever going to be solved by spontaneous collective action or by appeals to collective action. People will continue to do whatever it is they have to do to get their daily or yearly basic needs met. What we need are people in positions of power that care.

lisasays 4y ago
What we need are people in positions of power that care. Okay then - so how do we get those people to materialize? Absent "appeals to collective action" which you've already determined is never going to work.
myrmidon 4y ago
In a democracy, this means that people in aggregate need to care more about climate change consequences in the future than wealth/disposable income right now. That is simply a hard sell, always has been, and most of us are to blame for the consequences...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Specially hard to sell when those in power don't seem to treat is as existential crisis that will kill them. I do not see them following their own messaging to utmost care.
  - myrmidon 4y ago
    I think its dishonest to shift all blame on "people in power" when living in a democracy. It seems pretty clear to me that specifically US policy would have been MUCH more climate focussed if people had voted like 60% Al-Gore in 2000 (who ran 100% on that platform). But that option was basically on the table, people went like "meh, might as well take generic republican junior instead" and then got distracted by counter-jihad for the decade after. Now most of the damage is already done, and the same things that would've really helped in 2000 are much less useful now because they're late. And its not like Europeans did much better in the meantime, but they at least have the excuse that their baseline emissions are about half US level already (per capita) and governance is more fractured (by design), too...

time_to_smile 4y ago

We have been getting warnings like this for years and for years things have been getting visibly worse. I don't know how you "have to force myself quite hard to take this seriously" when the environment around us has been degrading faster than scientist have been claiming for years. Maybe you're confused by how events related to climate catastrophe unfold? It's not like a nuclear bomb where one day everything is fine, then the next every thing is gone. That case is different in two major ways: the break down is instantaneous and a new normal is almost immediately established. The final warning for climate is about a process that once started can no longer be stopped. You don't have to "trust the science", you can literally watch it happen as the arctic heads rapidly towards a blue ocean event (see "arctic death spiral"), crop failures have been increasing, California has suffered extreme years of drought followed by this current season of incredible floods, lake mead reaches a lower level than it has since it was filled, Texas is subjected to extreme weather (in both directions) causing year after year failure of the power grid. These things will continue to happen, will happen more frequently and at greater magnitude for the rest of your life. If you feel unconvinced it's because you're in a state of denial (which in part of grieving so not terribly surprising or uncommon).

fwlr 4y ago
I don’t feel unconvinced - which is a good thing, because if I did, the suggestion that it would be because I’m some psychological stage of grief would probably feel patronizing or dismissive. “the environment around us has been degrading faster than scientist have been claiming for years.” But not faster than science reporting has been claiming, since they have pretty reliably been claiming apocalypse in 5-10 years for 60 years now.
- time_to_smile 4y ago
  Well the real truth is they were right 60 years ago. That was probably our last realistic chance to avoid catastrophe. But we did nothing and as much as doom and gloom might sell newspapers, true despair does not. Every article since they has made use of increasingly unrealistic solutions to create the illusions that there is more time. And again, the "apocalypse" is not a single day's event in the case of climate change. Given that fossil fuel usage continues to climb as well as CO2 (and now methane) emissions it's clear we have chosen the worst case path. The only limiting factor is how much hydrocarbons we can suck out of the ground. We have committed to destruction of our ecosystem and transformation of the biosphere in ways not seen in millions of years on this planet. You don't need to read the news, you can just look at outside and watch it continue to happen at an escalating rate for the rest of your life.

yamtaddle 4y ago

We'll keep getting "final warnings" as we pass "realistic hope of keeping warming under X" and "a sliver of hope for keeping warming under X if a literal miracle occurs" thresholds for different warming levels. The next major report like this will probably have a best-case scenario of more like 2.0C. We're at "a sliver of hope if a literal miracle occurs" for 1.5C (realistic hope of keeping it that low was probably gone a decade ago, and you may have seen that shift reflected in earlier reports) and have passed similar thresholds for 1.0C already.

fwlr 4y ago
All I can take from this comment is there are several likelihood thresholds and an array of future Celsius values which can be combined to generate arbitrarily many “final warnings”. Sigh.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  We're terribly sorry the reality is a bit more complex and doesn't conform to your mental model of an "if then" statement.
  - fwlr 4y ago
    If you read my original comment more closely you’ll see I have no trouble with the complexity of the reality of climate change, and what I am taking issue with is the annoying method of communication of predictions about that reality, communication that resembles nothing so much as systematized crying wolf. I’m not even asking for it to stop, or threatening to spitefully disbelieve in climate change because of it, I’m just asking for it to be served with a spoonful of kindness. I don’t have anything productive or polite to say about you misinterpreting my comment as climate denial and then mocking me for having a simplistic mental model.
    - antisthenes 4y ago
      > I don’t have anything productive or polite to say about you misinterpreting my comment as climate denial It's good to know you've at least returned the favor in misinterpreting my comment in kind. > what I am taking issue with is the annoying method of communication of predictions about that reality, communication that resembles nothing so much as systematized crying wolf. I’m not even asking for it to stop, or threatening to spitefully disbelieve in climate change because of it, I’m just asking for it to be served with a spoonful of kindness. And this is extremely petty and ludicrous. Get past the communication methods and look at the core of the problem. If someone can't do that, then I have nothing to offer them but mockery. This is not directed at you personally (just in case you misinterpret my comment again)

raffraffraff 4y ago

> Everyone keeps saying the water is getting hotter! I trust the thermometer I really do! It just doesn't feel like it's getting hotter to me! - the slow-boiling frog

fwlr 4y ago
Your comment seems to imply I am a stealth climate change denier of some kind. That is wrong. If you must put me in some category of ignorance, I suppose you could call me a “climate change alarmist ignorer“.

myrmidon 4y ago

I'm not sure what your expectations are? IMO the situation is that mainstream science said categorically since before 1990 that CO2 emissions lead to unpleasant outcomes, and gives periodic updates on how the world in aggregate is mostly doing worse then planned in emissions and adds some detail to the predicted resulting consequences. What would you expect from science and science reporting instead?