I think this is precisely what is missing in so much of the climate communication from scientists in the space, the "so what" moment. Drawing a line in the san

I think this is precisely what is missing in so much of the climate communication from scientists in the space, the "so what" moment. Drawing a line in the sand is useful for policy (We should target staying under 1.5C above historical records), but the other piece needs to be the why of it all. So sure, from the figures given in this post we're seeing record antarctic sea ice anomolies, record sea surface temperature anomolies and record temperature mean anomolies. But what does this mean for the average person? What portion of our farmland is no longer serviceable? What places can people no longer live, what portion of our fresh water sources no longer work? How many people will have to move, find other sources of food/water? What other severe downstream effects are coming that I'm not even aware of? Severe weather? Flooding? Ecosystem collapse? I understand that this blog is likely more dedicated towards the science behind climate rather than communication of the consequences to the layman, but it seems that most science communication is more interested in communicating the science behind predictions (and often failing) than communicating what the outcomes are likely to be.