4 ms·

> driving more extreme changes, intoducing [sp] greater storms Respectfully, the mean temperature is the wrong measure for that. You want to look at measures l

by blagie 3y ago

> driving more extreme changes, intoducing [sp] greater storms Respectfully, the mean temperature is the wrong measure for that. You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. That's why I listed under "Extreme-weather-itis" under things I care about. > setting us up for even more change as water vapor and methane levels rise which themselves are greater insulators that trap more heat than CO2 Respectfully, you don't know that. The phrase should be "setting ourselves up for something possibly very bad." Extrapolation works worse than interpolation, and it's a chaotic system. Respectfully, the level of imprecision and propaganda here is a root cause of scepticism. People can understand why we don't want to play Russian Roulette, especially when most of the barrels are loaded, each with a different munition. That's more honest and likely leads to the outcome you want.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago
> You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. Possible concrete impacts of climate are discussed in detail in IPCC reports [1, 2]. For instance, > Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ [2] Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
- blagie 3y ago
  > Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. I believe that's simply expanding on my list of things in the "care about" bucket in my original post. Also, notice the first two words in your quote: "climate change." Not "global warming." Global warming doesn't show up there. The fixation on degrees C is making everyone miss the forest from the trees.
defrost 3y ago
> You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. That's what I mean by driving more extreme changes - more variations per unit time and greater variance in those variations. I did a little math once, it backed a few decades in global exploration geophysics for energy and mineral exploration. >> as water vapor and methane levels rise > Respectfully, you don't know that. I'll defer to NASA and many many others then: https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steam... AGU: Global Changes in Water Vapor 1979–2020 (2022) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD036728 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... > Respectfully, the level of imprecision and propaganda here is a root cause of scepticism. There is great certainty in the knowledge that a train will derail given certain conditions. There is immense imprecision and a fundemental inability to predict where the cut glass vase in the dining car will come to rest. This is baked into the nonlinear dynamics at play and seen as a simplest example in the Dzhanibekov effect | Tennis Racket Theorem where the centre of mass trajectory arc of a simple body is predictable whereas the tumblings about that projected arc are chaotic and unpredictable. Those that demand certainty wrt small details fail to understand the physics of the big picture.
- blagie 3y ago
  >There is great certainty in the knowledge that a train will derail given certain conditions. > > There is immense imprecision and a fundemental inability to predict where the cut glass vase in the dining car will come to rest. That's the root of the communications problem. What we know, to your analogy, is that a train wheel is incorrectly attached and will fall off at some point. What predictions are stating -- in media communicated to the general public from (and not just trash journalism; popular science journals, figures like Al Gore) -- is where the vase will land, when we don't even know where the train will derail. Climate change deniers cite failed prediction after failed prediction. They couldn't do that if the predictions had error bars. People can handle uncertainty just fine. However, if you tell someone a train is crashing in 100 meters over and over, they'll start to ignore you after a kilometer or two of failed predictions. If it derails 5 kilometers out, it's the boy who cried wolf. We are pretty close to complete certainty that Bad Stuff will happen, but we grossly overstate the certainty of which specific bad things will happen and when. > Those that demand certainty wrt small details fail to understand the physics of the big picture. All I'm demanding is that * we say "climate change" instead of "global warming;" * include error bars; * talk about impacts in terms of something other than degrees temperature rise; and * stop fixating on degrees C as the sole metric. Seriously. Watch Tucker Carlson at some point on the topic, or any similar commentator. 90% of what they say is correct, which is part of the reason it works so well. It's based on people on the left exaggerating for impact, simplifying, or using imprecise language. Al Gore sat us back 20 years with "An Inconvenient Truth."

by blagie 3y ago

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

> You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. Possible concrete impacts of climate are discussed in detail in IPCC reports [1, 2]. For instance, > Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ [2] Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

blagie 3y ago
> Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. I believe that's simply expanding on my list of things in the "care about" bucket in my original post. Also, notice the first two words in your quote: "climate change." Not "global warming." Global warming doesn't show up there. The fixation on degrees C is making everyone miss the forest from the trees.

defrost 3y ago

> You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. That's what I mean by driving more extreme changes - more variations per unit time and greater variance in those variations. I did a little math once, it backed a few decades in global exploration geophysics for energy and mineral exploration. >> as water vapor and methane levels rise > Respectfully, you don't know that. I'll defer to NASA and many many others then: https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steam... AGU: Global Changes in Water Vapor 1979–2020 (2022) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD036728 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... > Respectfully, the level of imprecision and propaganda here is a root cause of scepticism. There is great certainty in the knowledge that a train will derail given certain conditions. There is immense imprecision and a fundemental inability to predict where the cut glass vase in the dining car will come to rest. This is baked into the nonlinear dynamics at play and seen as a simplest example in the Dzhanibekov effect | Tennis Racket Theorem where the centre of mass trajectory arc of a simple body is predictable whereas the tumblings about that projected arc are chaotic and unpredictable. Those that demand certainty wrt small details fail to understand the physics of the big picture.

blagie 3y ago
>There is great certainty in the knowledge that a train will derail given certain conditions. > > There is immense imprecision and a fundemental inability to predict where the cut glass vase in the dining car will come to rest. That's the root of the communications problem. What we know, to your analogy, is that a train wheel is incorrectly attached and will fall off at some point. What predictions are stating -- in media communicated to the general public from (and not just trash journalism; popular science journals, figures like Al Gore) -- is where the vase will land, when we don't even know where the train will derail. Climate change deniers cite failed prediction after failed prediction. They couldn't do that if the predictions had error bars. People can handle uncertainty just fine. However, if you tell someone a train is crashing in 100 meters over and over, they'll start to ignore you after a kilometer or two of failed predictions. If it derails 5 kilometers out, it's the boy who cried wolf. We are pretty close to complete certainty that Bad Stuff will happen, but we grossly overstate the certainty of which specific bad things will happen and when. > Those that demand certainty wrt small details fail to understand the physics of the big picture. All I'm demanding is that * we say "climate change" instead of "global warming;" * include error bars; * talk about impacts in terms of something other than degrees temperature rise; and * stop fixating on degrees C as the sole metric. Seriously. Watch Tucker Carlson at some point on the topic, or any similar commentator. 90% of what they say is correct, which is part of the reason it works so well. It's based on people on the left exaggerating for impact, simplifying, or using imprecise language. Al Gore sat us back 20 years with "An Inconvenient Truth."