The title understates the authors' actual claim: "We found ... that this event would have effectively been impossible without human-induced climate change."
If someone wants to take the time to read the whole 35-page study, it would be interesting to know whether "human-induced climate change" is now just a synonym for "climate change", or is part of their research.
Unverified guess: it's to distinguish the rapid climate change happening since the 1850s from the slow, natural climate change that has been known to happen over millennia.
I know we have been gaslighted a lot by the right wing about climate change, but honestly, what can we do about it? The current lockdowns and limits on travel achieved the largest drop in fossil fuel usage probably ever done in human history. As people choose to work from home, and as more people go vegan, these trends may continue. And?
We need carbon sequestration, maybe.
PS: will the sun entering a cooling period have any serious effect at all on Earth?
==As people choose to work from home, and as more people go vegan, these trends may continue. And?==
Neither of these things are guaranteed to continue after COVID passes. More Westerners going vegan doesn’t automatically lower emissions if people in developing countries continue to grow their meat intake.
On the flip side, if people move out of urban cores and increase online shopping, those might have a negative impact on emissions.
Edit: Seems like people are misinterpreting the "negative impact on emissions". By that phrase, I meant that more personalized delivery and suburban living may very well lead to an increase in emissions. Apologies for the confusion.
Online shopping is way more efficient than in person shopping. Not only is the net transit time shorter, but stores are very costly in terms of energy use and logistics.
Delivery services driving items around, with laws even mandating full money-back without questions asked in eg Germany (inviting people to order clothes in a couple of candidate sizes and lots of retoure) are heavy on emissions as well.
People moving out of urban cores increases emissions, because they now have to build and heat/cool more homes, and most importantly — commute to work. Suburbia is probably one of the biggest contributors to fossil fuel usage.
Yet the ruling class continues to willfully induce a migration out of dense urban cores by permitting and accelerating their decay. Reduction in law enforcement is just one more move in that direction, following a decades-long regime of permissive attitudes towards homelessness. They want us out of cities, so we're out.
Luckily, it's becoming increasingly clear that that part will sort itself out without any kind of draconian China-style laws to forcibly limit family sizes: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2
That the population is developing in manageable ways in most of the world is one of the good news that will really help us on our way. The recipe is well-known by now: give women control over their own bodies and their own lives, and provide a social safety net that at a minimum is strong enough that having a large amount of children as an insurance stops making sense. IT WORKS :-)
It's not manageable, it's below replacement which is a risk of disaster if it's not increased. It seems we need poverty to make new humans and we're running out of poverty.
What? The Earth has plenty of humans. We're decades away from a falling population globally, and even then we probably have centuries to bring birth rates back up before disaster strikes (well, disaster with underpopulation as its cause). Also, bringing the rates back up should be easy enough when needed.
2 is only just below replacement rate, which means a manageable gradual reduction rather than the demographic cliff-edge of 0 or 1 or the unsustainable boundless growth of 3+.
At that rate it will be centuries before the world starts running out of people - plenty of time to anticipate and start planning more kids again.
In a growth-growth-growth economy, you miss out on a bunch of consumption by having kids young. So people wait, travel the world, eat at fancy restaurants, climb the ladder, and then have one or two right at 30 so that they can get back to climbing the ladder ASAP, afford their nice house, etc.
What happens when the economy isn't growing, you're in the same job for 40 years, air travel is prohibitively expensive, big houses with yards are illegal, etc
I think you and I have a very different understanding of why people postpone having children. And what makes you think people will go back to having the same job for 40 years? What indicators show that air travel will become prohibitively expensive? Why would big houses become illegal?
And for the last part, big houses have been inaccessible to most urbanites for a while now. Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). It also involves a lot less economic growth. And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. Sure, maybe you'll be a little more respected, but chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees.
> Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
> We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat).
Sure. Perhaps not international travel, but let's say we agree for the sake of further discussion.
> It also involves a lot less economic growth.
Perhaps.
> And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience.
I can't speak for everyone, but neither I nor most of my peers find a "leadership role" desireable at all. This idea that one must "rise through the ranks" to be "successful" seems like a sad americanism to me.
> chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees.
So what? I'm struggling to see the relation to what you were saying before about "staying in the same job for 40 years".
> People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
Fair enough. I still don't understand your argument one bit.
People delay kids mostly because there's other stuff they want to do first (or instead). Travel, succeed in their careers, etc. This is especially true in a high-growth economy because early-life career advancement, investment, etc is more valuable because of compounding.
In an austere, sustainable lifestyle, there are fewer things to do instead of have kids. The current economy both applies lots of pressure to delay kids and provides lots of alternatives to people on the fence about them.
In an entirely re-imagined, sustainable, economy, will the invisible hand keep family sizes down the same way it does in developed nations today? I'm not sure.
According to a 2017 Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board, the overall challenge in this part of the world breaks down into activity sectors, and then change or mitigation on the activity in those sectors. Ironically, you are speaking your concern at a time when there is actually a new chance for movement in the positive direction.
This particular report is easily found at the CARB website as scoping_plan_2017.pdf
For a start, we could look into investing corona-induced stimulus funds sustainably (rather than, say, subsidizing air travel). Only last year, Fridays for Future protests were a thing in many parts of the world. Today, it seems we're busy longing for yesterday. All the while the young FfF generation will have to pay back in one way or another. The perspective to take away something positive from coronavirus could go a long way towards political support for sustainability.
I fear it would require redefining the goals of our economies. I don't see that happening in reality though. A CO2 tax can help a bit, but even that would not change rising emission levels too much. The costs would just be countered by more growth. It isn't just that everything gets a little too hot, we also generally use too many resources:
Working from home obviously helps, but transportation is almost inconsequential. I think it is responsible for around 15% of emissions and that includes every form of logistic emitter. Individual traffic doesn't help but wouldn't necessarily be an issue and people are dependent on it outside of the largest cities.
Agriculture on the other hand is one of the largest factors next to power generation.
If every developing country reaches the industrial stage, we will surely fail hard. So technological transfer to developing countries is a necessity, so they can skip this development state for greener alternatives. That is an obligation developed countries need to acknowledge.
Technological progress can help too, but I don't think it is a good idea to depend on it alone.
In the USA transportation is 30% of carbon emissions and in California, where at least some nominal progress has been made toward carbon emissions from utilities, transportation is over 40%.
For California it's the latter: the denominator has gotten smaller while transportation has stayed flat. It's a mistake to try to blame it on trucks and airports. Private passenger cars are the majority. Air travel is 25x smaller.
> I know we have been gaslighted a lot by the right wing about climate change, but honestly, what can we do about it?
Just don't listen to them? This isn't rocket surgery. Once you realise something is propaganda and false narratives, it becomes easy to avoid it or point out to others who might be more susceptible.
Hey EGreg, we're generating ideas, sharing feedback, and building climate solutions over at https://collective.energy if you'd like to join a community of no-nonsense doers
Global warming is more complex. For example, we have extremely cold summer with lowest night temperatures under 10°C even in July (average low of last years is at least 14°C).
The relationship between climate and weather can be locally counterintuitive. When a lot of ice starts to melt, you get colder weather.
At a smaller scale I got acquainted with this paradox as a child—where I grew up, every spring temperatures drop substantially for a period of time as rivers and lesser ice caps unfreeze.
“Why is it getting colder?” “Because it is getting hotter!”
At larger scales, if say parts of Arctic melt, that would cool a lot of air, and where this airmass ends up there will be cold weather.
As a non-native english speaker, I wasn't aware these were different things, and you didn't clarify. Could you explain the difference insofar as it's related to this conversation? The dictionary didn't help much; they still look like synonyms to me.
Weather[1]
1 : the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
Climate[2]
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 : a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors a climate-controlled office
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere
Weather refers to short-term changes in atmosphere while climate is how we define long-term weather patterns in an area. [1]
Saying "climate change is more complex" because you're having a cool summer is wrong, because global warming is a climate-level change and a cool summer is weather. You cannot look at moment to moment or even season to season weather to describe climate change. Climate is usually described in long term trends, e.g., "For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century." [2] This is a typical description of climate change, explaining a trend over decades.
Edit to add, before I put my foot in my mouth: climate does inform weather, so you will see, for example, people saying that the Siberian heatwave are probably influenced by human climate change. Based on the original article, what they're saying is that this event would have been nearly impossible without human contributions.
Weather is the state of atmospheric affects today. E.g. rain, snow, wind, storm etc are weather.
Climate is a set of sustained climatic conditions. E.g. Mediterranean summers being hot and dry is climate. Boston winters being very snowy is climate.
Climate can only be observed in the order of years and decades. Weather is observed in the order of hours/days.
Shortly put, "weather" is short-term, localized state of atmosphere (e.g. "There will be rain tomorrow in NYC"), whereas "climate" is long-term, more extensive environmental conditions (hence "average" and "over a period of years").
Scientists first use the term "global warming", and then when the denialists point to localized temperature decrease as counterevidence (totally ignoring the global part), we adopt the term "climate change". And now the skeptics say the reason we switched the term is because it's wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In my country it's quite "cold" (for the season) where I live, whereas just 300km south it's hot summer weather as per usual.
Also saying the summer is extremely cold when it's not even over yet is quite a stretch - there's about 6 weeks left, 4 of which could just as well become hot.
You're right, but the Siberian heatwave is also a weather event. It's contextualized in climate science, but let's play it out. The article says carbon is a 600x likelihood multiplier. That's one region in one season. What is the likelihood of such an event in any region over 4 seasons? These sorts of stories promote misunderstanding of exactly your point.
Global warming causes more "extremes" to happen and more often in local areas. It's because of how the planet's (now warmer currents) travel, because of how much ice they've already melted at the poles, and so on.
All of this means that weather in various local areas is no longer "how it was before". You're going to see snow in areas that never saw snow, you're going to see extremely high temperatures in formerly more temperate areas, etc.
Watch some documentaries that show how the North Pole's ice cap is now 70% or less than it was in the 80's (which is also eliminating polar bear populations, as they can now hunt on ice caps for 2-3 fewer months than they were able to do before, leaving them to starvation, etc). Same for Antarctica, where ice is melting much faster than decades ago.
You don't think this has global repercussions? These are undeniable changes in the global climate system. They can see seen from one year to the next or one decade to the next with satellites.
At this point, a lot of (maybe even most) skeptics don't believe in man-made climate change simply because they strongly dislike the most prominent speakers against climate change, because they often also have liberal/progressive ideas. They see Bill Nye with his rap about gender and think "that's who thinks we're causing climate change ? I'm not believeing in that." It seems like climate change is a right wing vs left wing debate when it shouldn't be.
The goal of climate change denialists is to deny climate change by any excuse necessary. If the hot button topic wasn't the existence of different gender identities, they'd find something else as a wedge issue.
So your solution to bring together the left and right wing on climate change is nuclear power? Lets break down every level that is wrong on:
1. "Green people" are a tiny portion of the left wing and have little overlap with the two parties that actually matter in any way.
2. Right wing people are certainly not pro-nuclear, they're pro fossil fuels. You win virtually nobody new if every single democrat went 100% for nuclear.
3. Anti-nuclear people cross the political spectrum roughly evenly... conservatives hate it because it is essentially a government brainchild and because the government has such an interest in the byproducts.
4. People who want to actually address global warming (like Rep AOC) as opposed to simply being pro-nature ARE fans of nuclear. The Green New Deal now encourages nuclear power.
5. Nuclear power is not a magic bullet. It's more expensive than solar and wind. It has the same distribution issues as solar and wind. It requires batteries like solar and wind (although less seasonal storage). It's not because of public opposition, or regulations, or any nonsense like that, it's because nuclear power is fantastically complex and expensive to build. If it was cheap and easy Texas would be dotted with reactors, but instead they have wind turbines.
This whole "nuclear vs. renewables" thing is a relatively isolated scuffle between a minor but visible group of anti-nukes and a much larger but less invested pro-nuclear group that mistakes NIMBYs as the former and is generally low-knowledge on the topic. Enthusiasm for nuclear power is already widespread and generally unopposed. It is not a divisive issue between people who disagree about climate change. It is also not a significantly better solution to climate change than normal renewables.
Well that and Bill Nye's attempts to convince people of global warming have been totally unscientific, ranging from an "experiment" where he filled a sphere with CO2 and took the temperature, to literally igniting a globe and saying "the planet's on fucking fire".
Putting Nye aside, can anyone name an actually good public educator for climate change? I don't think I know of one that didn't go off the rails.
Then there's all the claims around climate change that simply turn out to be untrue. People said that polar bears were drowning because of global warming, yet the polar bear population isn't struggling to say the least. Glaciers were supposed to melt by now, and when they didn't, the signs that said they would were simply removed. Some cities and small islands were said to be at risk of sinking into the ocean by a decade ago, yet they remain dry. This doesn't even include some of the insane claims made by public servants.
I think that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a problem. But I don't think the average person is an idiot for distrusting what they're being told about it. They're regularly lectured by people who are wrong about climate change over and over again. Inversely to conservatives, most liberals I know don't actually understand science at all but treat it as a religion.
Public science communicators can start by no longer making predictions like "By 2020, there will be no more glaciers here." They've not proven to accurately predict anything at the decade-resolution, so they need to just stop doing it.
I'm not sure why you've chosen glacier forecasts to pick on. At least in aggregate they're one of the most predictable effects of climate change--look at this mass balance graph [0]. If public communicators said glaciers would be gone by 2020 (which I've never seen someone say) they were wrong, but the science behind it is clear and glaciers are on the way out.
> yet the polar bear population isn't struggling to say the least.
What do you mean, "to say the least"? The polar bear population has just barely remained stable since hunting was ended. They should be growing -populations are increasing in places that are cold enough- but because their range is shrinking quickly the bears are just being forced closer together instead of reproducing.
> Glaciers were supposed to melt by now, and when they didn't, the signs that said they would were simply removed.
You are specifically referring to Glacial national park; nobody is saying that about all glaciers because the 40m sea rise would be, uh, noticeable.
124 of the original 150 named glaciers in the park are gone. It's hard to see how that's really a failure. Inaccurate yes, but far from wrong. The fact that you see it as a boondoggle is due to messaging and sentiment, not because it was untrue in any important way.
> Some cities and small islands were said to be at risk of sinking into the ocean by a decade ago, yet they remain dry.
You started by talking about "public educators"... this claim originated with a 2003 pentagon report that was nonscientific and opened with the phrase "The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller."
The report was very explicitly based on a scenario with no scientific justification- they basically said that the Younger Dryas event happened suddenly after a period of warming, so maybe something like that could happen again. Then they tried to estimate political ramifications. It has nothing to do with predicting warming, yet people and notably the press just ran fucking wild with it. It's lunacy.
> Public science communicators can start by no longer making predictions like "By 2020, there will be no more glaciers here."
While there are obvious failures of messaging, the vast majority of misinformation originates with bad actors. Small signs that you don't see unless you physically visit Glacier national park? Sure- bad messaging to a tiny population. National news about Europe being underwater, twisted from a thought experiment that was itself fully fabricated? Nothing to do with scientists or even popular science.
> What do you mean, "to say the least"? The polar bear population has just barely remained stable since hunting was ended. They should be growing -populations are increasing in places that are cold enough- but because their range is shrinking quickly the bears are just being forced closer together instead of reproducing.
From your very own link:
>> Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
Polar bears overall are deemed "vulnerable". It's a bad thing because we'd like to see more polar bears, I suppose, but that's not even close to extinction. That's not to say I don't think they could go extinct in the next century. But there are plenty of polar bears, which is what someone who doesn't know better is going to read and then doubt climate change. The polar bear argument hasn't helped the climate change cause, except to embolden people who are already sold on it.
> You are specifically referring to Glacial national park; nobody is saying that about all glaciers because the 40m sea rise would be, uh, noticeable.
I don't think you've actually met many climate change deniers or skeptics.
When people in positions of authority forecast things beyond their ability, and then those forecasts turn out to be completely wrong, that's what people remember. The average person doesn't give a shit data and evidence. That stuff's boring! All they know is that yet another authority figure made an arrogant prediction that turned out to be wrong.
> 124 of the original 150 named glaciers in the park are gone. It's hard to see how that's really a failure. Inaccurate yes, but far from wrong. The fact that you see it as a boondoggle is due to messaging and sentiment, not because it was untrue in any important way.
Doesn't matter. The story was that yet another prediction about climate change was wrong. I know that you are intelligent enough to look at the numbers, but that's not how the average person thinks and that's not how climate change deniers are going to communicate their "evidence" to their followers.
This is why scientists and politicians making hard predictions is a horrible and destructive idea. If everyone was an intellectual, the situation might be different, but we're stuck trying to communicate the issues to non-intellectuals. If you say that "By 2050, there will be no more ice caps", and then it turns out 10% of the ice caps are still there by that point, people will say "Look, those scientists were wrong again!"
Do you understand?
> The report was very explicitly based on a scenario with no scientific justification- they basically said that the Younger Dryas event happened suddenly after a period of warming, so maybe something like that could happen again. Then they tried to estimate political ramifications. It has nothing to do with predicting warming, yet people and notably the press just ran fucking wild with it. It's lunacy.
Yes, for sure. That completely supports my point.
> While there are obvious failures of messaging, the vast majority of misinformation originates with bad actors. Small signs that you don't see unless you physically visit Glacier national park? Sure- bad messaging to a tiny population. National news about Europe being underwater, twisted from a thought experiment that was itself fully fabricated? Nothing to do with scientists or even popular science.
Then there's an assload of bad actors, and the vast majority of them are sanctioned by the mainstream media. And if this misinformation primarily originates by bad actors, then the scientific community has absolutely failed to communicate this to the public.
When I was younger, I believed all we needed was to give people information to get a better grasp on reality. That was my optimism about the potential good of the internet: the ability to access a wealth of information.
Now that I'm older and have spent a lot of years reading discussion boards, my stance is people will predominantly gravitate towards sources that justify their position regardless of whether their source(s) have been wrong before.
Alas, it's true - people are not perfectly rational reasoning machines, because we aren't superintelligent with the ability to weigh every fact we've ever encountered at once. We rely on heuristics to get by.
But the imperviousness of obviously wrong beliefs in the face of what you consider rational evidence should not be taken as license to give up! Consider - if people tend to want to stick to their wrongness in the face of contradictory evidence, the wrongness still had to come from somewhere. All beliefs are caused by something, even if the cause would not meet a scientifically rigorous definition of "evidence". There's always logic in it, even if the logic isn't immediately apparent. For example, "Hard-code the beliefs of the people around you when young" and "Reject evidence that upends a large proportion of your worldview" are both highly logical heuristics that, incidentally, probably aren't nearly as likely to get you stuck in dysfunctional local attractors when attacking problems like "hungry tigers" as opposed to "gigascale global realpolitik".
All I'm saying is - don't be too cynical. At the end of the day, the truth still matters, and all we can do is keep plugging away at it. The wall is thick but not impenetrable, and we have come a long way already.
No, the vast majority of Americans think covid-19 is real. Vox had a poll saying it was in the area of 1%. The issue is many don't want to be forced to wear masks, which is dumb and selfish, but not what you are saying.
Meanwhile as of 2019, over 20% of Americans doubt climate change, a much more significant number. This is far too high in my opinion, but it is steadily improving.
About 34% of all Republicans say that the theory that the outbreak was intentionally planned is definitely or probably true.
> About a third of those who have heard this claim (36%) – a quarter of all U.S. adults – say that they think it is “definitely” (8%) or “probably” (28%) true.
You're correct that I overstated my case. I wasn't making a meaningful distinction between people who say the virus is fake, or not dangerous, or not wearing a mask, or not social distancing in a reasonable way.
Climate change is hard because nothing easy can be done. We would have to dramatically change our life style, world population would have to decrease.
Don't see a "trillion dollar financial interest", it's the lifestyle of you and me and also the media/politics which both avoid difficult questions (why e.g. allow/encourage migrants from countries with totally irresponsible population dynamics?).
Here in Chicago we just had an episode where a white person was selling food by pushing around a little cooler like hispanic people typically do, and we all had to learn that only certain races can do certain types of jobs or else it's appropriation.
The killings thing has to be judged _per capita_ or else you get the wrong answer, and that of course make sense but the way you phrased it, it's tricky.
I think you have to remove the effects of childbearing, hours worked, and type of job to get the gender wage gap to show the real numbers, too.
But regardless, that's a question of fairness and/or government's social policy. Not something that should be reflected in your wage (which is the exchange for productive work for your employer) or otherwise a responsibility of your employer.
This not by accident. There is a book everyone should know about: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" written by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.
The bottom line is connection between deniers of dangers tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, ozone layer hole, and climate skepticism. Small number of core people and think tanks. Physicists like Fred Singer, Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, ... The Heritage Foundation, George C. Marshall Institute,Competitive Enterprise Institute, ... with corporate backers that change with every issue.
I think you and GP are both presenting a very narrow and biased view here.
The thing is, there’s a huge propaganda machine behind climate change. Backed by Hollywood, politicians everywhere on the left, universities.. there have been lots of distorted and hyperbolic claims made over years and years that didn’t turn out to be true. Lots of politicians making extreme claims that are just obviously false. I’ve personally seen nearing the order of hundreds of exaggerated claims that fall apart if you look in any detail, especially on MSM news sites.
Tons of pressure is put on scientists to match the narrative (multiple Climate scandals over decades where scientists were blackballed for misalignment or caught colluding to fudge numbers to paint a picture they admit they are trying to paint).
Just this year you have two books being published by left leaning scientists who basically say climate change has become a force beyond itself. Both cite data heavily. Both were attacked heavily by the press, or ignored. One was a former activist and leader in the cause originally, used to get a lot of attention and now has his posts literally deleted from Facebook.
To me it’s like this: when you hear the “dumb Americans” going on about climate change and you can’t believe how dumb they have to be to be skeptics... what you need to realize is they saw a lot of smoke, less fire, and they basically are tired of the left puffing the flames of everything they touch. Sure, there’s probably fire there. But how much can we tell? Our universities, the media, a lot of core institutions are actually not trustworthy. Skepticism is not irrational in the face of that.
I’m sure a lot of them would come around to admit some portions of climate change are legit, but it would take some really careful accounting. But they are in their own way calling out what they see as a bigger and more dangerous phenomenon: the distortion of fact gathering and science itself towards political gain. It’s an unfortunate reality. And really it’s hard to argue that isn’t true.
For reference, I am absolutely not a climate denialist but I would say I’ve burst my bubble that it’s so black and white after carefully looking at a lot of research. The main posts are likely true, the models have consistently overestimated our impact, and we focus on the wrong things more often than the real harms.
I totally get why people would be skeptical. Even smart people who have been right in contrarian ways have said exactly what I’m saying (look at Thiel).
So to simplify it down to “stupid righties” is always an error.
I challenge you to present your best single source of evidence to support your argument.
After you have presented that, you are not allowed to come back with more evidence. It was what you consider the best and most rock solid. Something you hang your credibility.
Usually the opinion like yours is just 'general attitude' and some individual instances of scientific fraud that is not evidence of anything being consistently biased.
I'm not a climate change denier in any way but, did any of the predictions (the ones with dates and numbers) of Al Gore in "An inconvenient truth" become reality? There has been a non trivial amount of hyperbole going on in this subject.
Again, I'm making the claim that it's been exaggerated/politicized (to what degree is hard to tell, due to so many bad incentives). I can absolutely cite many cases of missed models, corruption[0] (btw if you disagree on this one, there are many more cases like this) and fear-mongering going from the IPCC to politicians to university research that's all been shown to be anywhere from misleading to outright fudge - but - it's not some single thing. So your desire for "one piece of evidence" is not the right way to discuss this. A case has to be made.
If you want a case, here's one of the books I mentioned [1]. It's not entirely perfect, but an example of how you can absolutely make a very valid, science-based attempt at a world-view that refutes many of the central tenets of modern climate change ideology.
Don't confuse me: carbon emissions are an important problem, one we need to solve. But you have decades of people like Gore to AOC to celebrities to even legit scientists, all on the left, who make claims like "we're X years from Y major catastrophe", and they end up wrong. Then you have corruption scandals, inaccurate models and stories of suppression of non-narrative-fitting data, and the democrats beating it over everyones heads constantly.
All I'm saying is this: it's very understandable that the Average Josephine on the right is skeptical. Any claim that says "the righties are dumb / purposefully ignorant" is missing an important piece of socio-cultural dynamics and rational game theory - having a distrust of an institution thats been intensely politicized is... fairly rational.
Lets analyse the crowd who we must convince. These are either executives with vested interests who will not be affected by the current crisis or poor and uneducated people who have very little faith in the government or the social system. After all these people have all some point in time needed help from the government which was denied. This is open knowledge that governments are lobbied to pass laws in the interests of corporations. So people tend to lose faith. Same with society. These people have seen that they had to work very hard in life to just scrape by whereas there are others (some very young people) who just coast by. People not believing in climate change is not the problem it is the symptom of a society with very high levels of income inequality and lesser access to tools that lift people out of poverty. The cost of education just keeps rising every year and most manufacturing jobs are gone in post industrial societies. Without the tools to better your life conditions and diminishing access to tools of life improvement, when others ask these people to listen to a warning, of course they refuse.
I'm pretty sure that's part of Russia's long-term plan. Thawing out Siberia to get at its natural resources.
This was only possible because Western countries could not agree on a climate plan. Thanks to the distractions created by Russia's bot army: Trump, Brexit...
Seeing kids swimming in a lake in Siberia, they were having a good time at least. Also I'll long have fond memories of the year 2018. Being snowbound for a week (unprecedented here since 1947) and then a long glorious Summer. Bliss. BTW, I don't have a car any more (I've been solely remote working for 5 years), last time I flew was six years ago so yeah I'm doing my bit for the planet but I'm going to enjoy the good it brings and not worry about it.
The only way we can really "do our bit" is by actively pushing for systemic change, not by making change on an individual level. Because, unless you make it easier for the average human (not the cushy middle class westerner that can work remotely) not to contribute to greater carbon output, it won't make a difference.
Rather than buying long-lasting products as an individuals say (instead of the fast-fashion or planned obsolescence products that most people buy), we could push for legislation that makes those products less available and helps people to buy more natural-resource-efficient-in-the-long-term products. Most people, who are not well off, have no choice but to buy the cheap stuff that breaks soon. Most people have to drive in a carbon-emitting car to work because there is no electrified public transit. Most investors prefer to build products in a cheap way that they can flip fast because it leads to greater returns. Until we can collectively reverse the logic of this system, we will not be "doing our part".
We need to be up in arms and posing real challenges to the people in power that could change this situation, until they do change it sufficiently. Protests have not been working, boycotts have not been working. There are not many options left apart from general strikes or all out revolt. As you can see, the youth have actually understood this and have been on a school strike for nearly 2 years. However, this is not a sufficient threat to those in power and it must grow and include everyone else before we will see meaningful change.
I'm not a consumer by nature. I spend less than €100 a year on clothes I'd say, I cut my own hair, I wear clothes over and over till they fall apart, I shower a couple of times a week. I'm not middle class by anything other than mentality maybe. The nearest public transport to me is a bus stop 2 miles away with a few buses per day. I coppice trees grow vegetables. The worst I do for the planet is eat meat and drink milk. To be honest I'm a bit tired of listening to lectures from people who in their own lives are green at the margins but think nothing of taking a flight.
I've been thinking that there are a very small number of countries that will hurt less from climate change, possibly even benefiting on the whole. Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, maybe Mongolia.
Because these countries have relatively few vulnerable coastal cities, and a lot of land that's too cold to do much with. Yeah some places will get drier, but some will get wetter too (I think overall it gets wetter, but that doesn't mean much to people in areas that turn into deserts.)
Anyway I like to talk to people about it because I've noticed a very visceral reaction among progressives (translation: it gets down-voted on HN) that there could be any "winners" in climate change. It has to be all bad. They might well be right, but I think my point is still valid. Again, I'm not sure these countries will "win" but they'll be relative winners in a game full of negative prizes. If you disagree, engage with me, don't just click on the arrow.
> Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, maybe Mongolia.
Dunno about others, but the Internet says that Russia is worried about the warming, because it thaws the permafrost, which makes the ground in the cold wilderness unstable, which is very dangerous for all the resource extraction and transportation (pipelines) infrastructure that they have in Siberia. Once the now-rock-solid ground starts turning into a swamp, they will have trouble keeping the infra intact.
Yes, that's likely to happen. In Canada as well. But the cost of doing that seems minor compared to the value of so much forests and cropland expanding northward.
I don't know much about agriculture, but isn't it the case that, apart from favorable climate, soil quality is another important factor here? Currently, pretty much none of Siberia is farmed, even the parts where the climate could permit it - and AFAIR that's because the soil is not conducive to farming. It's similar case in many parts of Africa. Again, please correct me if you know more about it, as my knowledge here is based on Wikipedia.
If you had to rebuild every oil pipeline to be floating on a marsh rather than anchored in permafrost, the cost would be small compared to other numbers in global economics...
Not just pipelines, but roads, foundations of buildings, storage tanks, and so on. And don't forget that oil prices are low and will get lower as the world transitions to renewable energy, so there is no money to pay for fixing all this.
Putin bet the economy on fossil fuel extraction, and as a consequence Russia is basically screwed over the long run.
I don't see Russia or Canada having to fear that, for different reasons. Canada no doubt will take on many refugees on purpose, as it does now. Russia is untouchable thanks to their strong military and nuclear weapons. Neither border countries likely to have large numbers of climate refugees. Again though, win is relative here. These countries may still lose, just not as badly as everyone else.
The historical averages for winters in my part of Canada has been rising for the past century, which I can only say I'm glad about.
However, some provinces, like Alberta, have already had increased insurance prices due to the more drastic weather patterns due to climate change. It's not a coastal province, but hail, floods, and fires are still extremely expensive.
Yes, more extreme weather effects will be bad. But it will be worse in other countries (think hurricanes and typhoons, monsoons, etc). I think that supports my point of relative winners.
We can only speculate. But we live in a globalised world so the countries you mention may suffer indirectly due to disrupted supply chains from water and food shortages and conflicts in countries hit harder. You then also have mass migrations of climate refugees flocking to areas with less extreme weather conditions.
It seems strange that people aren’t buying more arctic coastal land as an investment IMO.
On the other hand it’s pretty hard to figure out who to buy it from and you’re literally betting on a combination of weather and geopolitics which seems a bit irresponsible.
Interesting aside, not really. It won't be even. It has a lot to do with rebounding land and gravitational effects of ice sheets, etc. Sea levels will drop, at least initially, in some places even though the overall trend is rising sea levels. It's a complex topic.
I think the majority of climate change effects are too slow to be able to invest in those trends. I've given that quite a bit of thought. Demographic investment is likely to payoff much sooner and has an even better "predictable results" quality to it.
A great Canadian songwriter once wrote - “If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice”.
Capital needs somewhere to park, and it all come with risk. I don’t know a company that will be immune to the direct effects of climate change and the secondary geopolitical effects. How is land purchasing differently responsible than any other investment?
If that land may go up in value in the future, plenty of the current owners may be quite happy to realize some of that gain now with 100% certainty by selling to speculators.
To be fair, if you look at it from a land mass point of view, then it is far more land than 3 countries would imply.
Additionally, climate has a lot to be with more frequent unpredictable extremes. In the sense, you are right, that these countries will only be 'relative winners in a game full of negative prizes'.
Though there is a lot of 'unused' land near the poles, there is still a lot of 'used' land near the equator. But map projections distort this, as all 3D-2D projections must.
I live in Vancouver, which is projected to get warmer and dryer, which any Vancouverite will tell you is a win. It's not that beneficial outcomes aren't possible, but it's not about specific wins, it's the overall outcome. In Vancouver, almost no one has air conditioning and most of the new housing is glass-walled condos that turn into ovens in the summar already. We already have sky-high rent and property values, so increasing the desirability of the lower mainland will only exacerbate the housing crisis.
Vancouver is a coastal city, so warmer weather will be paired with rising sea levels for which we haven't built. Forest fires have been a problem every summer in BC for the last decade. The mountain pine beetle has already been decimating our forests; previously they were held in check by cold winters, which are now a thing of memory and likely not to return any time soon.
And that's just Vancouver, BC. The prairies, breadbasket of Canada, have been seesawing between summers of drought and flooding.
It's not that there won't be some "winners", it's that the overall outcome is almost certainly more grim, at least in the short term, than the status quo.
I remember years ago this came up as a way for Russia (then the USSR) to increase its food supply as Siberia becomes a breadbasket, but more importantly more water freed up too. Yes, some coastal areas will have to move inland, and others may have drought, but there will be positives and negatives. The real question is what will the net result be, more negative than positive or vice versa?
This reminded me of my last Civ 6 game with Gathering Storm (an expansion that introduced disasters and global warming that can be extremely destructive...
1) Set disasters to maximum, map to old (flat), and with non-trivial amount of ocean.
2) Rush to flood barriers.
3) Build flood barriers while they are cheap (or ally the city-state that allows buying them with faith).
>In places such as Siberia, a hotter climate can have devastating effects, not just on the local wildlife and people who live there, but also on the world’s climate system as a whole, for example through thawing permafrost, reduced snow cover and melting ice.
My biggest issue with climate alarmism is that sources universally consider only the negative outcomes of climate change. Thawing permafrost also opens up an enormous amount of arable and habitable land. Some species will benefit from warmer temperatures and extended ranges (and that's not just insects).
Not to mention that neither the change or the rate is unprecedented according to geologic data.
The world is very unlikely to end, human migration and economic impact will be gradual (≈100) years, and people need to consider that mitigation of climate change at this point is also not "free" when they ask people to go vegan (yeah, right).
I saw this theory floating around. Haven't done much research but it sounds "plausible". Could Siberia warming be due to the ocean around it heating? The magnetic poles have been moving increasingly faster towards Siberia in the last few years. These poles move because of underground streams of the molten core deep below. Could these new flows potentially heat the earth's surface and the ocean above?
132 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 214 ms ] threadIf someone wants to take the time to read the whole 35-page study, it would be interesting to know whether "human-induced climate change" is now just a synonym for "climate change", or is part of their research.
We need carbon sequestration, maybe.
PS: will the sun entering a cooling period have any serious effect at all on Earth?
Neither of these things are guaranteed to continue after COVID passes. More Westerners going vegan doesn’t automatically lower emissions if people in developing countries continue to grow their meat intake.
On the flip side, if people move out of urban cores and increase online shopping, those might have a negative impact on emissions.
Edit: Seems like people are misinterpreting the "negative impact on emissions". By that phrase, I meant that more personalized delivery and suburban living may very well lead to an increase in emissions. Apologies for the confusion.
Delivery services driving items around, with laws even mandating full money-back without questions asked in eg Germany (inviting people to order clothes in a couple of candidate sizes and lots of retoure) are heavy on emissions as well.
But it's surely an improvement over Westerners not going vegan, and people in developing countries continuing to grow their meat intake.
Plant-based diet.
Treat others kindly.
Luckily, it's becoming increasingly clear that that part will sort itself out without any kind of draconian China-style laws to forcibly limit family sizes: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2
That the population is developing in manageable ways in most of the world is one of the good news that will really help us on our way. The recipe is well-known by now: give women control over their own bodies and their own lives, and provide a social safety net that at a minimum is strong enough that having a large amount of children as an insurance stops making sense. IT WORKS :-)
At that rate it will be centuries before the world starts running out of people - plenty of time to anticipate and start planning more kids again.
In a growth-growth-growth economy, you miss out on a bunch of consumption by having kids young. So people wait, travel the world, eat at fancy restaurants, climb the ladder, and then have one or two right at 30 so that they can get back to climbing the ladder ASAP, afford their nice house, etc.
What happens when the economy isn't growing, you're in the same job for 40 years, air travel is prohibitively expensive, big houses with yards are illegal, etc
And for the last part, big houses have been inaccessible to most urbanites for a while now. Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
> Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
Sure. Perhaps not international travel, but let's say we agree for the sake of further discussion.
> It also involves a lot less economic growth.
Perhaps.
> And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience.
I can't speak for everyone, but neither I nor most of my peers find a "leadership role" desireable at all. This idea that one must "rise through the ranks" to be "successful" seems like a sad americanism to me.
> chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees.
So what? I'm struggling to see the relation to what you were saying before about "staying in the same job for 40 years".
> People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
Fair enough. I still don't understand your argument one bit.
In an austere, sustainable lifestyle, there are fewer things to do instead of have kids. The current economy both applies lots of pressure to delay kids and provides lots of alternatives to people on the fence about them.
In an entirely re-imagined, sustainable, economy, will the invisible hand keep family sizes down the same way it does in developed nations today? I'm not sure.
We need to rethink our cities, mobility, and transportation in general to truly make a difference.
This particular report is easily found at the CARB website as scoping_plan_2017.pdf
https://www.overshootday.org/
Working from home obviously helps, but transportation is almost inconsequential. I think it is responsible for around 15% of emissions and that includes every form of logistic emitter. Individual traffic doesn't help but wouldn't necessarily be an issue and people are dependent on it outside of the largest cities.
Agriculture on the other hand is one of the largest factors next to power generation.
If every developing country reaches the industrial stage, we will surely fail hard. So technological transfer to developing countries is a necessity, so they can skip this development state for greener alternatives. That is an obligation developed countries need to acknowledge.
Technological progress can help too, but I don't think it is a good idea to depend on it alone.
Or perhaps California emits few CO2 so that is has become a larger factor percentage wise?
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/g...
Just don't listen to them? This isn't rocket surgery. Once you realise something is propaganda and false narratives, it becomes easy to avoid it or point out to others who might be more susceptible.
How do we demonize greed / powerlust, and make cooperative goals more attractive?
At a smaller scale I got acquainted with this paradox as a child—where I grew up, every spring temperatures drop substantially for a period of time as rivers and lesser ice caps unfreeze.
“Why is it getting colder?” “Because it is getting hotter!”
At larger scales, if say parts of Arctic melt, that would cool a lot of air, and where this airmass ends up there will be cold weather.
As a non-native english speaker, I wasn't aware these were different things, and you didn't clarify. Could you explain the difference insofar as it's related to this conversation? The dictionary didn't help much; they still look like synonyms to me.
Weather[1]
1 : the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
Climate[2]
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 : a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors a climate-controlled office 3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weather
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate
1. A single data point.
2. The average of many data points
Saying "climate change is more complex" because you're having a cool summer is wrong, because global warming is a climate-level change and a cool summer is weather. You cannot look at moment to moment or even season to season weather to describe climate change. Climate is usually described in long term trends, e.g., "For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century." [2] This is a typical description of climate change, explaining a trend over decades.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_we...
[2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-...
Edit to add, before I put my foot in my mouth: climate does inform weather, so you will see, for example, people saying that the Siberian heatwave are probably influenced by human climate change. Based on the original article, what they're saying is that this event would have been nearly impossible without human contributions.
Climate is a set of sustained climatic conditions. E.g. Mediterranean summers being hot and dry is climate. Boston winters being very snowy is climate.
Climate can only be observed in the order of years and decades. Weather is observed in the order of hours/days.
Scientists first use the term "global warming", and then when the denialists point to localized temperature decrease as counterevidence (totally ignoring the global part), we adopt the term "climate change". And now the skeptics say the reason we switched the term is because it's wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In my country it's quite "cold" (for the season) where I live, whereas just 300km south it's hot summer weather as per usual.
Also saying the summer is extremely cold when it's not even over yet is quite a stretch - there's about 6 weeks left, 4 of which could just as well become hot.
All of this means that weather in various local areas is no longer "how it was before". You're going to see snow in areas that never saw snow, you're going to see extremely high temperatures in formerly more temperate areas, etc.
Watch some documentaries that show how the North Pole's ice cap is now 70% or less than it was in the 80's (which is also eliminating polar bear populations, as they can now hunt on ice caps for 2-3 fewer months than they were able to do before, leaving them to starvation, etc). Same for Antarctica, where ice is melting much faster than decades ago.
You don't think this has global repercussions? These are undeniable changes in the global climate system. They can see seen from one year to the next or one decade to the next with satellites.
No data for July yet, but June was either 2nd or 3rd warmest on record depending on who reports data (EU Copernicus vs NOAA)
Previous months were:
January - warmest on record February - 2nd warmest March - 2nd warmest April - 2nd warmest, behind by only 0.01 Celcius May - warmest
See https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-maps
1. "Green people" are a tiny portion of the left wing and have little overlap with the two parties that actually matter in any way.
2. Right wing people are certainly not pro-nuclear, they're pro fossil fuels. You win virtually nobody new if every single democrat went 100% for nuclear.
3. Anti-nuclear people cross the political spectrum roughly evenly... conservatives hate it because it is essentially a government brainchild and because the government has such an interest in the byproducts.
4. People who want to actually address global warming (like Rep AOC) as opposed to simply being pro-nature ARE fans of nuclear. The Green New Deal now encourages nuclear power.
5. Nuclear power is not a magic bullet. It's more expensive than solar and wind. It has the same distribution issues as solar and wind. It requires batteries like solar and wind (although less seasonal storage). It's not because of public opposition, or regulations, or any nonsense like that, it's because nuclear power is fantastically complex and expensive to build. If it was cheap and easy Texas would be dotted with reactors, but instead they have wind turbines.
This whole "nuclear vs. renewables" thing is a relatively isolated scuffle between a minor but visible group of anti-nukes and a much larger but less invested pro-nuclear group that mistakes NIMBYs as the former and is generally low-knowledge on the topic. Enthusiasm for nuclear power is already widespread and generally unopposed. It is not a divisive issue between people who disagree about climate change. It is also not a significantly better solution to climate change than normal renewables.
Putting Nye aside, can anyone name an actually good public educator for climate change? I don't think I know of one that didn't go off the rails.
Then there's all the claims around climate change that simply turn out to be untrue. People said that polar bears were drowning because of global warming, yet the polar bear population isn't struggling to say the least. Glaciers were supposed to melt by now, and when they didn't, the signs that said they would were simply removed. Some cities and small islands were said to be at risk of sinking into the ocean by a decade ago, yet they remain dry. This doesn't even include some of the insane claims made by public servants.
I think that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a problem. But I don't think the average person is an idiot for distrusting what they're being told about it. They're regularly lectured by people who are wrong about climate change over and over again. Inversely to conservatives, most liberals I know don't actually understand science at all but treat it as a religion.
Public science communicators can start by no longer making predictions like "By 2020, there will be no more glaciers here." They've not proven to accurately predict anything at the decade-resolution, so they need to just stop doing it.
[0] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
What do you mean, "to say the least"? The polar bear population has just barely remained stable since hunting was ended. They should be growing -populations are increasing in places that are cold enough- but because their range is shrinking quickly the bears are just being forced closer together instead of reproducing.
https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/
> Glaciers were supposed to melt by now, and when they didn't, the signs that said they would were simply removed.
You are specifically referring to Glacial national park; nobody is saying that about all glaciers because the 40m sea rise would be, uh, noticeable.
124 of the original 150 named glaciers in the park are gone. It's hard to see how that's really a failure. Inaccurate yes, but far from wrong. The fact that you see it as a boondoggle is due to messaging and sentiment, not because it was untrue in any important way.
https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-nat...
> Some cities and small islands were said to be at risk of sinking into the ocean by a decade ago, yet they remain dry.
You started by talking about "public educators"... this claim originated with a 2003 pentagon report that was nonscientific and opened with the phrase "The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller."
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2004/02/abruptclimatechang...
The report was very explicitly based on a scenario with no scientific justification- they basically said that the Younger Dryas event happened suddenly after a period of warming, so maybe something like that could happen again. Then they tried to estimate political ramifications. It has nothing to do with predicting warming, yet people and notably the press just ran fucking wild with it. It's lunacy.
> Public science communicators can start by no longer making predictions like "By 2020, there will be no more glaciers here."
While there are obvious failures of messaging, the vast majority of misinformation originates with bad actors. Small signs that you don't see unless you physically visit Glacier national park? Sure- bad messaging to a tiny population. National news about Europe being underwater, twisted from a thought experiment that was itself fully fabricated? Nothing to do with scientists or even popular science.
From your very own link:
>> Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
Polar bears overall are deemed "vulnerable". It's a bad thing because we'd like to see more polar bears, I suppose, but that's not even close to extinction. That's not to say I don't think they could go extinct in the next century. But there are plenty of polar bears, which is what someone who doesn't know better is going to read and then doubt climate change. The polar bear argument hasn't helped the climate change cause, except to embolden people who are already sold on it.
> You are specifically referring to Glacial national park; nobody is saying that about all glaciers because the 40m sea rise would be, uh, noticeable.
I don't think you've actually met many climate change deniers or skeptics.
When people in positions of authority forecast things beyond their ability, and then those forecasts turn out to be completely wrong, that's what people remember. The average person doesn't give a shit data and evidence. That stuff's boring! All they know is that yet another authority figure made an arrogant prediction that turned out to be wrong.
> 124 of the original 150 named glaciers in the park are gone. It's hard to see how that's really a failure. Inaccurate yes, but far from wrong. The fact that you see it as a boondoggle is due to messaging and sentiment, not because it was untrue in any important way.
Doesn't matter. The story was that yet another prediction about climate change was wrong. I know that you are intelligent enough to look at the numbers, but that's not how the average person thinks and that's not how climate change deniers are going to communicate their "evidence" to their followers.
This is why scientists and politicians making hard predictions is a horrible and destructive idea. If everyone was an intellectual, the situation might be different, but we're stuck trying to communicate the issues to non-intellectuals. If you say that "By 2050, there will be no more ice caps", and then it turns out 10% of the ice caps are still there by that point, people will say "Look, those scientists were wrong again!"
Do you understand?
> The report was very explicitly based on a scenario with no scientific justification- they basically said that the Younger Dryas event happened suddenly after a period of warming, so maybe something like that could happen again. Then they tried to estimate political ramifications. It has nothing to do with predicting warming, yet people and notably the press just ran fucking wild with it. It's lunacy.
Yes, for sure. That completely supports my point.
> While there are obvious failures of messaging, the vast majority of misinformation originates with bad actors. Small signs that you don't see unless you physically visit Glacier national park? Sure- bad messaging to a tiny population. National news about Europe being underwater, twisted from a thought experiment that was itself fully fabricated? Nothing to do with scientists or even popular science.
Then there's an assload of bad actors, and the vast majority of them are sanctioned by the mainstream media. And if this misinformation primarily originates by bad actors, then the scientific community has absolutely failed to communicate this to the public.
1. the timescale is decades and centuries, not weeks and months
2. there is a trillion dollar financial interest against fighting climate change
Given what we're seeing with covid-19 and how much harder climate change is to deal with, I'm not optimistic.
Now that I'm older and have spent a lot of years reading discussion boards, my stance is people will predominantly gravitate towards sources that justify their position regardless of whether their source(s) have been wrong before.
But the imperviousness of obviously wrong beliefs in the face of what you consider rational evidence should not be taken as license to give up! Consider - if people tend to want to stick to their wrongness in the face of contradictory evidence, the wrongness still had to come from somewhere. All beliefs are caused by something, even if the cause would not meet a scientifically rigorous definition of "evidence". There's always logic in it, even if the logic isn't immediately apparent. For example, "Hard-code the beliefs of the people around you when young" and "Reject evidence that upends a large proportion of your worldview" are both highly logical heuristics that, incidentally, probably aren't nearly as likely to get you stuck in dysfunctional local attractors when attacking problems like "hungry tigers" as opposed to "gigascale global realpolitik".
All I'm saying is - don't be too cynical. At the end of the day, the truth still matters, and all we can do is keep plugging away at it. The wall is thick but not impenetrable, and we have come a long way already.
Meanwhile as of 2019, over 20% of Americans doubt climate change, a much more significant number. This is far too high in my opinion, but it is steadily improving.
> About a third of those who have heard this claim (36%) – a quarter of all U.S. adults – say that they think it is “definitely” (8%) or “probably” (28%) true.
https://www.journalism.org/2020/06/29/most-americans-have-he...
72% said they would not get a coronavirus vaccine:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/21/most-americ...
Don't see a "trillion dollar financial interest", it's the lifestyle of you and me and also the media/politics which both avoid difficult questions (why e.g. allow/encourage migrants from countries with totally irresponsible population dynamics?).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
People will believe what's convenient for them and their lifestyles.
Here in Chicago we just had an episode where a white person was selling food by pushing around a little cooler like hispanic people typically do, and we all had to learn that only certain races can do certain types of jobs or else it's appropriation.
The killings thing has to be judged _per capita_ or else you get the wrong answer, and that of course make sense but the way you phrased it, it's tricky.
I think you have to remove the effects of childbearing, hours worked, and type of job to get the gender wage gap to show the real numbers, too.
Life isn't simple.
The fact that childbearing is unpaid work is a significant part of the problem.
But regardless, that's a question of fairness and/or government's social policy. Not something that should be reflected in your wage (which is the exchange for productive work for your employer) or otherwise a responsibility of your employer.
This not by accident. There is a book everyone should know about: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" written by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.
The bottom line is connection between deniers of dangers tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, ozone layer hole, and climate skepticism. Small number of core people and think tanks. Physicists like Fred Singer, Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, ... The Heritage Foundation, George C. Marshall Institute,Competitive Enterprise Institute, ... with corporate backers that change with every issue.
The thing is, there’s a huge propaganda machine behind climate change. Backed by Hollywood, politicians everywhere on the left, universities.. there have been lots of distorted and hyperbolic claims made over years and years that didn’t turn out to be true. Lots of politicians making extreme claims that are just obviously false. I’ve personally seen nearing the order of hundreds of exaggerated claims that fall apart if you look in any detail, especially on MSM news sites.
Tons of pressure is put on scientists to match the narrative (multiple Climate scandals over decades where scientists were blackballed for misalignment or caught colluding to fudge numbers to paint a picture they admit they are trying to paint).
Just this year you have two books being published by left leaning scientists who basically say climate change has become a force beyond itself. Both cite data heavily. Both were attacked heavily by the press, or ignored. One was a former activist and leader in the cause originally, used to get a lot of attention and now has his posts literally deleted from Facebook.
To me it’s like this: when you hear the “dumb Americans” going on about climate change and you can’t believe how dumb they have to be to be skeptics... what you need to realize is they saw a lot of smoke, less fire, and they basically are tired of the left puffing the flames of everything they touch. Sure, there’s probably fire there. But how much can we tell? Our universities, the media, a lot of core institutions are actually not trustworthy. Skepticism is not irrational in the face of that.
I’m sure a lot of them would come around to admit some portions of climate change are legit, but it would take some really careful accounting. But they are in their own way calling out what they see as a bigger and more dangerous phenomenon: the distortion of fact gathering and science itself towards political gain. It’s an unfortunate reality. And really it’s hard to argue that isn’t true.
For reference, I am absolutely not a climate denialist but I would say I’ve burst my bubble that it’s so black and white after carefully looking at a lot of research. The main posts are likely true, the models have consistently overestimated our impact, and we focus on the wrong things more often than the real harms.
I totally get why people would be skeptical. Even smart people who have been right in contrarian ways have said exactly what I’m saying (look at Thiel).
So to simplify it down to “stupid righties” is always an error.
After you have presented that, you are not allowed to come back with more evidence. It was what you consider the best and most rock solid. Something you hang your credibility.
Usually the opinion like yours is just 'general attitude' and some individual instances of scientific fraud that is not evidence of anything being consistently biased.
If you want a case, here's one of the books I mentioned [1]. It's not entirely perfect, but an example of how you can absolutely make a very valid, science-based attempt at a world-view that refutes many of the central tenets of modern climate change ideology.
Don't confuse me: carbon emissions are an important problem, one we need to solve. But you have decades of people like Gore to AOC to celebrities to even legit scientists, all on the left, who make claims like "we're X years from Y major catastrophe", and they end up wrong. Then you have corruption scandals, inaccurate models and stories of suppression of non-narrative-fitting data, and the democrats beating it over everyones heads constantly.
All I'm saying is this: it's very understandable that the Average Josephine on the right is skeptical. Any claim that says "the righties are dumb / purposefully ignorant" is missing an important piece of socio-cultural dynamics and rational game theory - having a distrust of an institution thats been intensely politicized is... fairly rational.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmi...
This was only possible because Western countries could not agree on a climate plan. Thanks to the distractions created by Russia's bot army: Trump, Brexit...
Rather than buying long-lasting products as an individuals say (instead of the fast-fashion or planned obsolescence products that most people buy), we could push for legislation that makes those products less available and helps people to buy more natural-resource-efficient-in-the-long-term products. Most people, who are not well off, have no choice but to buy the cheap stuff that breaks soon. Most people have to drive in a carbon-emitting car to work because there is no electrified public transit. Most investors prefer to build products in a cheap way that they can flip fast because it leads to greater returns. Until we can collectively reverse the logic of this system, we will not be "doing our part".
We need to be up in arms and posing real challenges to the people in power that could change this situation, until they do change it sufficiently. Protests have not been working, boycotts have not been working. There are not many options left apart from general strikes or all out revolt. As you can see, the youth have actually understood this and have been on a school strike for nearly 2 years. However, this is not a sufficient threat to those in power and it must grow and include everyone else before we will see meaningful change.
Because these countries have relatively few vulnerable coastal cities, and a lot of land that's too cold to do much with. Yeah some places will get drier, but some will get wetter too (I think overall it gets wetter, but that doesn't mean much to people in areas that turn into deserts.)
Anyway I like to talk to people about it because I've noticed a very visceral reaction among progressives (translation: it gets down-voted on HN) that there could be any "winners" in climate change. It has to be all bad. They might well be right, but I think my point is still valid. Again, I'm not sure these countries will "win" but they'll be relative winners in a game full of negative prizes. If you disagree, engage with me, don't just click on the arrow.
Dunno about others, but the Internet says that Russia is worried about the warming, because it thaws the permafrost, which makes the ground in the cold wilderness unstable, which is very dangerous for all the resource extraction and transportation (pipelines) infrastructure that they have in Siberia. Once the now-rock-solid ground starts turning into a swamp, they will have trouble keeping the infra intact.
But as long as you can extract it at a profit, people will do just that.
Putin bet the economy on fossil fuel extraction, and as a consequence Russia is basically screwed over the long run.
The nukes would be useful against this.
However, some provinces, like Alberta, have already had increased insurance prices due to the more drastic weather patterns due to climate change. It's not a coastal province, but hail, floods, and fires are still extremely expensive.
On the other hand it’s pretty hard to figure out who to buy it from and you’re literally betting on a combination of weather and geopolitics which seems a bit irresponsible.
The rise in sea levels will be global though.
Capital needs somewhere to park, and it all come with risk. I don’t know a company that will be immune to the direct effects of climate change and the secondary geopolitical effects. How is land purchasing differently responsible than any other investment?
If that land may go up in value in the future, plenty of the current owners may be quite happy to realize some of that gain now with 100% certainty by selling to speculators.
To be fair, if you look at it from a land mass point of view, then it is far more land than 3 countries would imply.
Additionally, climate has a lot to be with more frequent unpredictable extremes. In the sense, you are right, that these countries will only be 'relative winners in a game full of negative prizes'.
Though there is a lot of 'unused' land near the poles, there is still a lot of 'used' land near the equator. But map projections distort this, as all 3D-2D projections must.
Here's an example: https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/0...
Africa is set to grow to ~4B people by 2099, India to ~2B, by 2099. Those 'unused' areas my find a use one way or another.
Vancouver is a coastal city, so warmer weather will be paired with rising sea levels for which we haven't built. Forest fires have been a problem every summer in BC for the last decade. The mountain pine beetle has already been decimating our forests; previously they were held in check by cold winters, which are now a thing of memory and likely not to return any time soon.
And that's just Vancouver, BC. The prairies, breadbasket of Canada, have been seesawing between summers of drought and flooding.
It's not that there won't be some "winners", it's that the overall outcome is almost certainly more grim, at least in the short term, than the status quo.
One could take the stance that climate change brings lots of change, and adjusting to change is painful, therefore mostly we lose.
Still I think none of that defeats my point that Canada will be a relative winner compared to other countries.
But HN is very "right wing" compared to say to say twitter or most subreddits.
And There may be some winners, but there may also be deaths and movement of people beyond any genocide ever seen.
1) Set disasters to maximum, map to old (flat), and with non-trivial amount of ocean.
2) Rush to flood barriers.
3) Build flood barriers while they are cheap (or ally the city-state that allows buying them with faith).
4) Burn coal until everybody drowns ;)
Russia has nuclear power plants built on permafrost. You don't need foundations and cooling is easy, but...
Permafrost that is no longer perma and soon not even frost is a massive problem.
My biggest issue with climate alarmism is that sources universally consider only the negative outcomes of climate change. Thawing permafrost also opens up an enormous amount of arable and habitable land. Some species will benefit from warmer temperatures and extended ranges (and that's not just insects).
Not to mention that neither the change or the rate is unprecedented according to geologic data.
The world is very unlikely to end, human migration and economic impact will be gradual (≈100) years, and people need to consider that mitigation of climate change at this point is also not "free" when they ask people to go vegan (yeah, right).