5 ms·

> climate change has not yet had an emotional connection So. I see people around me in climate agony, with one (very smart) friend saying he doesn't want to ha

> climate change has not yet had an emotional connection So. I see people around me in climate agony, with one (very smart) friend saying he doesn't want to have any children because of climate misery they will experience. I, as it happened, have sadly have paid little attention to the numbers side of climate things. So, with the climate change being a widely acknowledged disaster and an unimaginable catastrophe, how would it affect Germany?

revelio 4y ago
If you paid attention to the numbers side of things, you'd know that there is no climate catastrophe. That's mass hysteria talking, not anything scientifically grounded. Your friend is unfortunately therefore educated but maybe not that smart, if he's really in agony over this stuff. If he was smart he'd double check these claims thoroughly before making a life decision as big as not having children (assuming he really does want them).
- Timon3 4y ago
  How so? It seems that the IPCC models have been quite accurate, and that we're on track for the more pessimistic paths. Can you explain how the numbers show that this is not true?
  - revelio 4y ago
    Not at all! The IPCC models have come under very heavy criticism even from the more moderate climatologists, partly because the scenario that gets regularly referred to as "business as usual" (RCP8.5) in fact makes many extreme assumptions that deviate strongly from current practice. RCP 8.5 gets more than half of scenario references in the latest IPCC report, yet even the BBC has had to accept that it's unrealistic: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers. Referred to as "business as usual", the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely. [...] Very few scientists realised that RCP8.5 was originally a 90th percentile outcome, not a most likely or business-as-usual outcome. They assumed too much, when they should perhaps have checked, say the authors of the review. "How many of your average climate scientists know the nuances of RCP8.5? It would certainly be interesting to know." The media, taking their steer from scientists, have tended to use the highest impacts when reporting on projections based on emissions scenarios. A 500% increase in anything is not "business as usual" by definition, yet the IPCC and the various journalists and NGOs in its orbit have for years regularly reported it as such and used it to gin up reports of a non-existent crisis. Consider whether an institution that describes a scenario of massive change as "business as usual" can be trusted and what that means for their other claims. The BBC describes this as a "communications cockup" in which scientists merely didn't realize the assumptions of the scenario they were talking about. But such "cockups" occur regularly and are simply not plausible. If you really dig into this supposed crisis, it's always like this. The assumptions are absurd, unfounded or invalidated, the data is presented as precise but the error bars are massive and a million other things. You don't hear about it outside of forums like this one because the people who benefit from the population believing in an endless crisis have made it taboo to point out what they're doing.
    - Timon3 4y ago
      If I understand you correctly, your gripe here is with the name of the worst scenario, because you believe that: > A 500% increase in anything is not "business as usual" by definition I have two questions here: 1) why is a 500% increase in coal usage "not business as usual by definition"? What is the definition you're going off, and why does it not fit? "Business as usual" doesn't mean "everything as it is right now", it means "continuing on the current trajectory". If there was a definitive trend of increased coal usage, how would a 500% increase fall out of the definition of "business as usual"? 2) this is a gripe you have with communication, but it's actually not really relevant to what I asked. Do you have a specific answer for my initial question? An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it.
      - revelio 4y ago
        https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set-to-reach-a-new-high-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set... Global coal use is set to rise by 1.2% in 2022, surpassing 8 billion tonnes in a single year for the first time and eclipsing the previous record set in 2013, according to Coal 2022, the IEA’s latest annual market report on the sector. Based on current market trends, the report forecasts that coal consumption will then remain flat at that level through 2025 as declines in mature markets are offset by continued robust demand in emerging Asian economies That was 2022, a year in which Europe had to increase coal usage for the first time in a long time due to exploding natural gas pipelines and Germany shutting down nuclear power. Even in that extreme and unprecedented situation, the world managed only a 1.2% increase in coal usage. In other years coal usage fell or was flat. A 500% increase is a fantasy and everyone who looks at it for even a split second knows it. The complaint isn't the name of the worst case scenario. That's just an example. This scenario is routinely used as the basis for "climate crisis" claims, so it's not merely a naming issue either. The complaint is about the overall duplicity and manipulative nature of what this field produces. >> An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it. https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/slide1.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04... But bear in mind that even this sort of graph can be misleading, because it assumes the relation between temperature and the effect on the climate is understood. It actually isn't. BTW, you say "it's actually not really relevant to what I asked" but you originally said "we're on track for the more pessimistic paths" and it was meant to show that although this claim is often made, it's not really right. The more pessimistic path is implausible and has been for a long time.

revelio 4y ago

If you paid attention to the numbers side of things, you'd know that there is no climate catastrophe. That's mass hysteria talking, not anything scientifically grounded. Your friend is unfortunately therefore educated but maybe not that smart, if he's really in agony over this stuff. If he was smart he'd double check these claims thoroughly before making a life decision as big as not having children (assuming he really does want them).

Timon3 4y ago
How so? It seems that the IPCC models have been quite accurate, and that we're on track for the more pessimistic paths. Can you explain how the numbers show that this is not true?
- revelio 4y ago
  Not at all! The IPCC models have come under very heavy criticism even from the more moderate climatologists, partly because the scenario that gets regularly referred to as "business as usual" (RCP8.5) in fact makes many extreme assumptions that deviate strongly from current practice. RCP 8.5 gets more than half of scenario references in the latest IPCC report, yet even the BBC has had to accept that it's unrealistic: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers. Referred to as "business as usual", the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely. [...] Very few scientists realised that RCP8.5 was originally a 90th percentile outcome, not a most likely or business-as-usual outcome. They assumed too much, when they should perhaps have checked, say the authors of the review. "How many of your average climate scientists know the nuances of RCP8.5? It would certainly be interesting to know." The media, taking their steer from scientists, have tended to use the highest impacts when reporting on projections based on emissions scenarios. A 500% increase in anything is not "business as usual" by definition, yet the IPCC and the various journalists and NGOs in its orbit have for years regularly reported it as such and used it to gin up reports of a non-existent crisis. Consider whether an institution that describes a scenario of massive change as "business as usual" can be trusted and what that means for their other claims. The BBC describes this as a "communications cockup" in which scientists merely didn't realize the assumptions of the scenario they were talking about. But such "cockups" occur regularly and are simply not plausible. If you really dig into this supposed crisis, it's always like this. The assumptions are absurd, unfounded or invalidated, the data is presented as precise but the error bars are massive and a million other things. You don't hear about it outside of forums like this one because the people who benefit from the population believing in an endless crisis have made it taboo to point out what they're doing.
  - Timon3 4y ago
    If I understand you correctly, your gripe here is with the name of the worst scenario, because you believe that: > A 500% increase in anything is not "business as usual" by definition I have two questions here: 1) why is a 500% increase in coal usage "not business as usual by definition"? What is the definition you're going off, and why does it not fit? "Business as usual" doesn't mean "everything as it is right now", it means "continuing on the current trajectory". If there was a definitive trend of increased coal usage, how would a 500% increase fall out of the definition of "business as usual"? 2) this is a gripe you have with communication, but it's actually not really relevant to what I asked. Do you have a specific answer for my initial question? An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it.
    - revelio 4y ago
      https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set-to-reach-a-new-high-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set... Global coal use is set to rise by 1.2% in 2022, surpassing 8 billion tonnes in a single year for the first time and eclipsing the previous record set in 2013, according to Coal 2022, the IEA’s latest annual market report on the sector. Based on current market trends, the report forecasts that coal consumption will then remain flat at that level through 2025 as declines in mature markets are offset by continued robust demand in emerging Asian economies That was 2022, a year in which Europe had to increase coal usage for the first time in a long time due to exploding natural gas pipelines and Germany shutting down nuclear power. Even in that extreme and unprecedented situation, the world managed only a 1.2% increase in coal usage. In other years coal usage fell or was flat. A 500% increase is a fantasy and everyone who looks at it for even a split second knows it. The complaint isn't the name of the worst case scenario. That's just an example. This scenario is routinely used as the basis for "climate crisis" claims, so it's not merely a naming issue either. The complaint is about the overall duplicity and manipulative nature of what this field produces. >> An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it. https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/slide1.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04... But bear in mind that even this sort of graph can be misleading, because it assumes the relation between temperature and the effect on the climate is understood. It actually isn't. BTW, you say "it's actually not really relevant to what I asked" but you originally said "we're on track for the more pessimistic paths" and it was meant to show that although this claim is often made, it's not really right. The more pessimistic path is implausible and has been for a long time.