Submitted by filosoful t3_11wl83z in Futurology
m-s-c-s t1_jd40u6k wrote
Reply to comment by YawnTractor_1756 in UN climate report: Scientists release 'survival guide' to avert climate disaster by filosoful
> That report is about projected warming of to ~2.8C by 2100, just like many other similar reports that put it into 2.5-2.8 range. And just like others it discusses possiblities and scenarios of getting in below 1.5 and 2C. Which are very illusional and those unreachable in rational terms scenarios
Says you, decidedly NOT a climate scientists. On the other hand, the climate scientists in that report seem to think they're necessary goals.
> Antonio uses to scream loud titles and get anxious clicks from modern "final day witnesses", despite there is nothing about "catastrophe", "bUrNing" or similar doomers' vocabulary in the report.
The title of the report is literally "The Closing Window Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies"
It discusses extensively the risk and impact of failure to address climate change.
> Why? You can't read yourself?
I can, and did. Did you? If so, you missed this in the third paragraph of the introduction:
"Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published two reports as part of its Sixth Assessment cycle, on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a) and Mitigation of Climate Change (IPCC 2022b). The reports record the vast impacts of climate change that we are already experiencing, and how the climate risks of the future are of a much greater order of magnitude. Once again, these reports document that the scale and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, finding that projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming. This year, as has repeatedly been the case in recent years, many countries have experienced an unprecedented number of climate events, with extreme weather leading to flooding, drought and wildfires, and causing food shortages, health problems, and major damage to ecosystems and human habitats, leading to internal displacement and migration around the world."
There's that doomer language you claimed wasn't in it. That's why I asked you to read it.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd4e0og wrote
Sice you mentioned really good example of how it should be done, I'm done discussing Antonios bullshit .
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a).
This one is actually a great scientific report. I used technical summary since whole report is too large.
Not too hard to understand. For those who don't have time to read there is an awesome list of Representative Key Risk on page 113, as well is great succinct recap on them:
>For most RKRs, potentially global and systemically pervasive risks become severe in the case of high levels of warming, combined with high exposure/vulnerability, low adaptation or both
And looks like it says exactly what I highlighted: in vulnerable regions that fail to adapt.
Who would have thought?.. /s
Page 116 is actually brilliant sum up of risks and *conditions* under which under which risks could become severe. Note how real science does not talk "doom, inevitable doom and death, grave, grave, point of no return"? This is the whole point of my rant.
I gotta thank you now that I have scientific report to point it is going to be easier to drive my point that doomers are just that, doomers. There is no inevitability, it is not global, it is not indiscriminate, it is not unconditional and here is a scientific report that point that out: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_TechnicalSummary.pdf
m-s-c-s t1_jd5emdp wrote
Man, I'm not sure why you're thanking me. These are your sources. Paper written in 2022, and has an excellent summary.
That said, it is a wonderful example that António Guterres is correctly echoing the sentiment of the reports.
Here's some of the detail you missed:
From Page 116:
> Latin America: "5.8 million people pushed to extreme poverty by 2030 (7; 11)"
That's 7 years from now, but who's counting?
> Worldwide: "Global GDP losses of 10–23% by 2100 due to temperature impacts alone (3; 12; 13)"
Note that they didn't say "lack of growth," they said "losses."
Or look at the map on page 81, where it shows the number of people who will be displaced by more severe costal flooding. Tens of millions of people in India by 2040.
Also take a look at page 80, where substantial portions of the world will be at risk of death from heat and humidity. It's literally a map of where it will be effectively uninhabitable because there will not be a single day in the year where it's safe to go outside. It will literally be too hot to live there.
Another problem would be the wildfires,
> "At a global warming of 2°C with associated changes in precipitation global land area burned by wildfire is projected to increase by 35% (medium confidence)." Page 55.
or as you put it: "bUrNing". Actually, you also claimed they didn't use the word "catastrophe", but a conjugation of it shows up 3 times in your source.
> Page 45: "Climate-induced extinctions, including mass extinctions, are common in the palaeo record, underlining the potential of climate change to have catastrophic impacts on species and ecosystems (high confidence)."
> Page 50: "Between 1970 and 2019, drought-related disaster events worldwide caused billions of dollars in economic damages (medium confidence). Drylands are particularly exposed to climate change related droughts (high confidence). Recent heavy rainfall events that have led to catastrophic flooding were made more likely by anthropogenic climate change (high confidence). Observed mortality and losses due to floods and droughts are much greater in regions with high vulnerability and vulnerable populations such as the poor, women, children, Indigenous Peoples and the elderly due to historical, political and socioeconomic inequities (high confidence)."
Note that they used the past tense there, as in catastrophic impact has already occurred.
> Page 87: "Restoration of ecosystems in catchments can also support water supplies during periods of variable rainfall and maintain water quality and, combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence). Restoring natural vegetation cover and wildfire regimes can reduce risks to people from catastrophic fires."
Note here that they use both the things you complained about, catastrophe and burning.
Like look man, I can't help but think you still aren't reading these since they directly contradict your thesis.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd945q9 wrote
"Wildfires are predicted to be larger, and wildfires happen in the world, so 'the world is burning' is a correct phrase, and if you don't see how this makes sense, then you're silly climate denier!!!" - gist of your comment
I also noted how you managed to find and highlight doom words even in paragraphs dedicated to positive things, like wildlife restorations, this really tells a whole story about doomers, they will find doom-words anywhere and conjure up a world of them while ignoring everything else.
What you and Antonio do has beed described in a form of comic long time ago: https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2013/08/0c729810e4e921d67bf898e0069f88b8.jpg
m-s-c-s t1_jdbgai8 wrote
Cool. Can you give me one of those positive paragraphs to talk about? I'm having trouble identifying one.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdcrh3g wrote
Really? My dude, it was the last one you quoted, come on. It is talking about supporting water supplies with the restoration of ecosystems, basically recommending a path for vulnerable areas to reduce or maybe even remove a risk to their water supply.
>...combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence)
What is the best hint that your mind skips over good stuff and over-focuses on the bad than this? It's not healthy for you or anyone.
m-s-c-s t1_jdcsfea wrote
Uh… those are all suggestions about what we need to do more of. They’re not saying “this is fine because we’re doing these things.” They’re saying “this will be fine if we take action like Antonio has been begging you to do for years.”
> TS.D.4.5 Ecosystem-based adaptation measures can reduce climatic risks to people, including from flood, drought, fire and overheating (high confidence). Ecosystem-based adaptation approaches are increasingly being used as part of strategies to manage flood risk, at the coast in the face of rising sea levels and inland in the context of more extreme rainfall events (high confidence). Flood-risk measures that work with nature by allowing flooding within coastal and wetland ecosystems and support sediment accretion can reduce costs and bring substantial co-benefits to ecosystems, liveability and livelihoods (high confidence). In urban areas, trees and natural areas can lower temperatures by providing shade and cooling from evapotranspiration (high confidence). Restoration of ecosystems in catchments can also support water supplies during periods of variable rainfall and maintain water quality and, combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence). Restoring natural vegetation cover and wildfire regimes can reduce risks to people from catastrophic fires. Restoration of wetlands could support livelihoods and help sequester carbon (medium confidence), provided they are allowed accommodation space. Ecosystem-based adaptation approaches can be cost effective and provide a wide range of additional co-benefits in terms of ecosystem services and biodiversity protection and enhancement. (Figure TS.9 URBAN, Figure TS.11a) {2.6.3, 2.6.5, 2.6.7, Table 2.7, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.5, Box 4.6, Box 4.7, 12.5.1, 12.5.3, 12.5.5, 13.2.2, 13.3.2, 13.6.2, Box 14.7, 15.5.4, Figure 15.7, CCP2, CCP5.4.2, CCB NATURAL, CCB SLR}
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdcw130 wrote
There are signs of looming local catastrophes, that can be mitigated if we do enough. We should be talking about saving those people, that would be a positive twist. A saving mission, what can be more noble and relatable to westerners?
Instead Antonio uses fear. And I agree with one grandma that recently said on TV in relation to republicans banning books: "Fear is not future. Fear is control"
And Antonio using fear is not begging, Antonio is manipulating for control.
m-s-c-s t1_jde06t7 wrote
They tried the saving mission, and most countries ignored the recommendations at any meaningful scale. You want a positive outcome? Stop making excuses about the source of the messaging and start doing what the scientists recommend instead of claiming we’re already on a positive trajectory.
Edit: it bugged me so I had to address it. 10-20% of global GDP and millions of people is no longer “local.” Moreover, the catastrophes are not “looming,” they’re already happening as articulated by the scientists in your own source.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jde1k8q wrote
>They tried the saving mission
This BS probably works for you with younger dudes, but I've been in thinking capacity since the time it was called 'global warming', and it has always been about "everybody dies unless we stop fossil in ___ years".
>start doing what the scientists recommend
As far as I'm concerned we're already doing it. And we're already on positive trajectory as compared to those RCP scenarios that were extensively used in 90s and 2000s as mainstream scenarios.
m-s-c-s t1_jdfa2wr wrote
> This BS probably works for you with younger dudes, but I've been in thinking capacity since the time it was called 'global warming', and it has always been about "everybody dies unless we stop fossil in ___ years".
Global warming and climate change refer to different things.
By the way, not everybody dies, just far more people than need to. They literally catalogue how many they anticipate in the source you provided.
> TS.C.6.3 Increased heat-related mortality and morbidity are projected globally (very high confidence). Globally, temperature- related mortality is projected to increase under RCP4.5 to RCP8.5, even with adaptation (very high confidence). Tens of thousands of additional deaths are projected under moderate and high global warming scenarios, particularly in north, west and central Africa, with up to year-round exceedance of deadly heat thresholds by 2100 (RCP8.5) (high agreement, robust evidence). In Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, urban heat-related excess deaths are projected to increase by about 300 yr-1 (low emission pathway) to 600 yr-1 (high emission pathway) during 2031–2080 relative to 142yr-1 during 1971–2020 (high confidence). In Europe the number of people at high risk of mortality will triple at 3°C compared to 1.5°C warming, in particular in central and southern Europe and urban areas (high confidence). {6.2.2, 7.3.1, 8.4.5, 9.10.2, Figure 9.32, Figure 9.35, 10.4.7, Figure 10.11, 11.3.6, 11.3.6, Table 11.14, 12.3.4, 12.3.8, Figure 12.6, 13.7.1, Figure 13.23, 14.5.6, 15.3.4, 16.5.2}
See what I mean?
> As far as I'm concerned we're already doing it. And we're already on positive trajectory as compared to those RCP scenarios that were extensively used in 90s and 2000s as mainstream scenarios.
Here's the CO^2 trendline. Where's the dip we'd see if we were doing this action?
Oh, and the 90s and 2000s mainstream scenarios? Here are some examples:
> Schneider’s forecast is considerably more ominous.
> “Six of the warmest years in the last 100 occurred in the ‘80s,” he said recently at a meeting of chemists in Miami. “And I’ll give you odds that the ‘90s will be warmer than the ‘80s.”
When that was published in 1989, we were at 0.27C increase. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed 8 years later in 1997, it was 0.33C.
> "I am a fundamentally optimistic person, but it is getting more and more difficult, because I see the message of science has not fundamentally changed from when I started working in this field, which was 20 years ago," said Thomas Stocker, a professor of climate and environmental physics at the University of Bern in Switzerland.
> Based on two assumptions — that it is not economically feasible for nations to make emissions reductions of more than about 5 percent per year and that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have a moderate warming effect — he calculates a 2.7 degree Fahrenheit (1.5 degree Celsius) cap on warming, for which island nations vulnerable to rising sea levels have pushed, is already unrealistic. (That cap is often compared to a speed limit for warming; while some consequences — heat waves, species loss and so on — are expected to occur at lesser levels of warming, the repercussions are expected to become more dire as warming increases.)
> Reductions would need to begin by 2027 for the more widely accepted 3.6-degree F (2 degrees C) cap to be achievable, and a 4.5 degree F (2.5 degree C) cap becomes unrealistic after 2040, he calculates.
We were at 0.65C then.
Now, a year after the industrial world shut down to the point that rivers ran clear, it's 0.89C.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments