Another reason for me to hate flying. Don't worry everyone. I avoid it like the plague. Not like the yuppie backpackers who have developed a lifestyle around it.
"Worst-Case 'Climate p*rn' Is Counterproductive to Addressing Real Climate Change: 'Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome' ": https://reason.com/2020/01/29/climate-p*rn-is-counterproductive-to-addressing-real-climate-change/ excerpts: Predictions of catastrophic climate change by the end of this century are mostly based on a greenhouse gas emissions scenario fetchingly entitled "Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5" (RCP8.5). In RCP8.5, humanity greatly boosts the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by increasing the amount of coal it burns five-fold. This scenario, instead of being treated as a very unlikely worst case, has been frequently described by climate researchers and journalists as a baseline for future emissions and temperature projections. In an email, Breakthrough Institute director of climate and energy Zeke Hausfather observes that the RCP8.5 "emissions scenario has been referred to a 'business as usual' in thousands of published papers." Consequently, it is not surprising that the climate change literature is replete with studies stoked with RCP8.5 worst-case emissions inputs concluding that business-as-usual ends in a worst-case global temperature apocalypse. For example, journalist David Wallace-Wells relied on RCP8.5 when he warned in his 2019 book, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming, that "a five-degree increase in temperatures would make parts of the planet unsurvivable." "Model projections rely on two things to accurately match observations: accurate modeling of climate physics and accurate assumptions around future emissions of CO2 and other factors affecting the climate," explain climate researchers in a new study in Geophysical Research Letters. "The best physics‐based model will still be inaccurate if it is driven by future changes in emissions that differ from reality." They report that early climate models, once actual greenhouse gas and aerosol pollution emissions are inputted, have been pretty good at projecting global average temperature trends over the past three decades. This suggests, at least in the models evaluated in that study, that their internal physics are, broadly speaking, correct. Critics of the RCP8.5 scenario, like climatologist Judith Curry, early on argued that it was being misused by researchers as a business-as-usual baseline to sketch out "horrific visions of the future." Climate policy expert and University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., is also a fierce critic of using RCP8.5 to generate what he says amounts to "climate p*rn." In the current issue of Nature, Hausfather and Glen P. Peters, the research director at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, urgently appeal to climate researchers to use more realistic emissions scenarios as baselines for the climate change projections to be reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report's (AR6) due in April 2021. Hausfather and Peters note that researchers have devised 5 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) outlining various population, technological, and energy trends to use as inputs into the AR6 climate models. Taking into account the more plausible emissions scenarios among the SSPs, they conclude that "assessment of current policies suggests that the world is on course for around 3°C of warming above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." They think that's "still a catastrophic outcome," but it's a long way from 5°C projections based on the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario. Even climate doomster Wallace-Wells recently conceded about the climate future that "it's not as bad as it once looked." *** "We must all—from physical scientists and climate-impact modelers to communicators and policymakers—stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is," they write. "This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as being out of control and unsolvable. Pressingly, it might result in poor planning, whereas a more realistic range of baseline scenarios will strengthen the assessment of climate risk." Climate p*rn is not business-as-usual and it's getting in the way of devising real solutions to the climate change that humanity is most likely going to experience in this century.
Greta T plans to trademark her name: https://climatechangedispatch.com/greta-trademark-name-movement/
The most likely scenario is pretty much the worst case. Have you looked at what is happening already? The economic cost will be catastrophic. It's not so much as making places uninhabitable as much as the increasing cost os things such as wild fires, food loss, infrastructure cost, etc. Nearly every industry is impacted in a significant way - from transportation to pharmaceuticals to tourism to agriculture The right focuses on these doomsday scenarios as the worst case and think the devastating economic is "not so bad" when in reality we're going to look back and think how stupid was this unnecessary self-inflicted wound
Cambridge don argues for human extinction as the solution to climate change https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ne...6ZcIZd88tSI3Bx_CoqTjKkrxU-1xHR4P-M5QQ2sa_Z7Ys 'The only solution for climate change is letting the human race become extinct' Anglia Ruskin professor Patricia MacCormack has written a controversial book on how our extinction could save the planet Alistair Ryder 00:01, 5 FEB 2020 A Cambridge academic has proposed a radical new way to solve climate change – letting humanity become extinct. Patricia MacCormack, a professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University, has just released her new book The Ahuman Manifesto, which will officially be launched in Cambridge today (Wednesday, February 5). The book argues that due to the damage done to other living creatures on Earth, we should start gradually phasing out reproduction. But rather than offering a bleak look at the future of humanity, it has generated discussion due to its joyful and optimistic tone, as it sets out a positive view for the future of Earth - without mankind. It also touches on several hot-button topics, from religion and veganism to the concept of identity politics, tying these into how the creation of a hierarchal world among humans has left us blind to the destruction we are causing to our habitat and other forms of life. The central argument in The Ahuman Manifesto can be boiled down to this: mankind is already enslaved to the point of “zombiedom” by capitalism, and because of the damage this has caused, phasing out reproduction is the only way to repair the damage done to the world. Additionally, humanity has to see it isn’t the single living dominant force - but first, it needs to dismantle an established hierarchy amongst itself. This argument has not received as much disagreement as you might expect. Professor MacCormack continued: “Everyone’s okay with the ideas in the book until they’re told they’d have to act on it. There is a lot of agreement that these changes might work for the world, but when it imposes on people, it becomes proactive. “Many people are surprised it’s so joyful and it has this radical compassion, which cares for the world. It’s not about our death, so much as it’s about celebrating the tools that exist to care for a decelerating Earth. “People wonder why I don’t think humans are exceptional, dominant beings – but when I ask them why they think that, I never get a good answer back. The way we perceive the world isn’t the only one, we never think about animal life. “Even Extinction Rebellion only focus on the effect this will have on human life when climate change is something that will affect every living being on the planet.” For more information on The Ahuman Manifesto, visit bloomsbury.com/uk/the-ahuman-manifesto-9781350081093.
We live in an ever-increasingly complex world driven by the coupling of complex systems to other complex systems which creates increased opportunity for cascading failures. For example, in my line of work, which happens to be wildland fire, we have a complex firefighting organization of international, national, regional and local groups foscused on firefighter safety and designed for multiple jurisdictions within the current political, governmental, and media construct aimed at protecting lives, infrastructure, and the economies of communities while dealing with a complex natural system of which fire is a part. We don't just work the fire, we have to deal with all that other stuff too--if we don't, failure is close by and sometimes when we think we do everything right or the best we can, failure still comes because we lack the knowledge and imagination to see all the complexities and how they affect each other until after the fact. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...unting-the-cost-of-australias-summer-of-dread That's easy compared to the totality of what climate disruption brings. The best guy writing about complex systems and climate is, I think, Alex Steffen. Here's a Twitter thread that's a good start and provides a few links to some of his other thoughts. In short, we are all under-appreciating the uncertainty and disruption we are living. As he says, climate disruption is not an issue, it is an era, it is where we live and will continue to live. It's going to take some serious thinking and commitment to guide the changes the way we would like. Otherwise, a more disruptive and potentially dangerous change will happen. And time is not on our side. That's why I no longer argue with denialists or engage in splitting hairs over +4, +8.5, or whatever. All of those are time sinks that allow us to not completely see the reality in front of us. The next 20 years are going to be dramatic and will influence the next 15,000 years one way or another. Stay engaged, accept ambiguity, recognize reality, and work for the better. Good luck all.
It's amazing how memorized at the alter of fake propagandists you climate cultists are. If this guy told you to drink the koolaid, you would without hesitation. That guy's 2nd tweet on the thread was as right on the money as every other one of your doomsday messiahs have been concerning climate change. In other news, look what your cult is doing to this child. She's 17 and looks like she's 12. Malnourished, tired, depressed, hair falling out. That girl needs about 20 Whataburger #5's, a week long vacation at a tropical beach, and no distance herself from your cult.
Do you follow the topic? The 'child' is doing this of her own accord. It isn't what anyone is doing to her. What she's doing is raising awareness in a way that hasn't been done in over a decade, at least. She was able to capture the attention of the President of the United States, who then started taking swipes at her, and she made the President of the United States look foolish. Not bad for teenager.
The world just broke a disturbing climate record despite the global lockdowns: https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/...-climate-record-despite-the-global-lockdowns/ excerpt: For the last couple of months, global human society effectively stood still. Initially, the signs looked good that the global shutdown was having a positive effect on the natural world. Wildlife appeared to be thriving. Emissions and pollution plummeted. Now, we have the clearest measure so far of what lasting impact the lockdown has had. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography has released its CO2 readings from the Mauna Loa Observatory in the US. They show that, despite the lockdown, CO2 levels have reached a record high. Essentially, the data reveals that two months of significantly reduced human activity did not make a dent in the damage we’ve done to the planet. It ultimately confirms that nothing short of wholesale systemic change will do – with the rejection of fossil fuels at the heart of that transformation.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/06/what-100-degree-day-siberia-means-climate-change/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146879/heat-and-fire-scorches-siberia
climate change comes in dead last, again: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316751/americans-cite-covid-important-problem.aspx
A lot of issues with his claims. His point to use nuclear power is fair, but the way he sells this through attacking the "climate scare" is very misleading. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/08/04/shellenberger-climate-change/
