Climate records tumble, leaving Earth in uncharted territory - scientists

[Jacques Clouseau]

35 minutes ago, candide said:

To remain on the topic of the OP: of course, activists are in propaganda mode. However, it is unlikely that environmental issues such as climate change will improved without the participation of people. So It's not necessarily a bad thing if the media are a bit too alarming.

Having said that, even the more cautious scientific forecasts are alarming enough. 

I think that fear paralyzes people. Therefore I think that strategies based on it are dead wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong though. But when I see reports stating (hopefully erroneously) that 50% of young people suffer from eco-anxiety aka depression, I would tend to think that I'm onto something.

[Cory1848]

26 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

As long as global capitalism isn't reformed, it is pointless to try and convince people to change. When you're struggling to make ends meet, you usually don't have your mind set on abstract long-term goals - it is true in the West but even more so in developing countries.

I think that pretty much gets at the crux of it. People with money will do what it takes to keep that money, and people without are too concerned about putting food on the table to be able to think about much else. And the current mode of neoliberal capitalism just exacerbates this, by increasing the wealth gap, which is happening worldwide.

 

As for whether fear is more a motivating factor or a paralyzing one, I’m sure there are arguments on both sides!

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, candide said:

To remain on the topic of the OP: of course, activists are in propaganda mode. However, it is unlikely that environmental issues such as climate change will improved without the participation of people. So It's not necessarily a bad thing if the media are a bit too alarming.

Having said that, even the more cautious scientific forecasts are alarming enough. 

Only an idiot would not be alarmed by the recent scientific reports about climate change and the IPCC warnings.

[ozimoron]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think the problem with the alarmists is that most of the people claiming science science science barely seen to understand arithmetic. 

 

I have never claimed the Earth was not warming, or that human activity is not impacting the climate, I have in fact stated the opposite any number of times, yet I am called a denialist. 

 

 

 

Will you also concede that the warming is 100% caused by burning fossil fuels. You or others can say trees all you want but if no fossil fuel was being burnt we wouldn't be in this predicament at the current state of deforestation. I'm not denying that land clearing is a major problem but it isn't the root cause.

 

edit: well, apart from cow farts.

Edited July 25, 2023 by ozimoron

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Will you also concede that the warming is 100% caused by burning fossil fuels. You or others can say trees all you want but if no fossil fuel was being burnt we wouldn't be in this predicament at the current state of deforestation. I'm not denying that land clearing is a major problem but it isn't the root cause.

 

edit: well, apart from cow farts.

Another alarmist that does not even understand arithmetic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So, anyone to the right of Friedrich Engels is an extremist, got it. 

Not tired of trolling?

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Another alarmist that does not even understand arithmetic.

Perhaps you'd like to give me a lesson by explaining where my arithmetic is wrong instead of just trolling?

Edited July 25, 2023 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

Yes and no. People tend to make no difference between climate science and climate research. Climate research is an ongoing speculative process. When idiots use climate research to make a scientific point, it amounts to manipulation imo.

 

I see three categories of people in this debate about the future of our world: climate change deniers, climate change alarmists and those who think the future is going to be different but not catastrophic (name them as you please). Who is right and who is wrong? It's pretty clear that deniers are wrong but scientists are divided about what the future is really gonna look like. Nobody really knows. We know it's gonna be challenging, costly, etc... but worse case scenarios aren't for sure.

 

The article is pretty honest about this by the way: it honestly states that it's mainly about fear, that climate and weather shouldn't be mixed up, etc... But still I think it's a way of nudging people using their natural negativity bias. Journalists should talk about science not scientific research. I'm all for telling people what global warming is and how it works, I'm against telling them that the future is doomed. Unfortunately most of the time this is the kind of information that is being spread.

 

You're not debating. Not with me anyway.

There are climate denialists, there are climate alarmists, and then there are are climatologists. You know, climate scientists. And their consensus is that it's going to get pretty grim if the average temperature increase from the baseline goes over 1.5C and a lot grimmer if it goes over 2 C. You can read the latest IPCC summary report.

It begins with an executive summary. If you want to see a summary of the summary, so to speak, of how their risk assessment has grown grimmer over time, you can skip the details and just go to page 181, a segment of which is quoted here. (AR5 is the previous report.)

 

Increased Reasons for Concern
There are multiple lines of evidence that since AR5 the assessed
levels of risk increased for four of the five Reasons for Concern
(RFCs) for global warming levels of up to 2°C (high confidence).
The risk transitions by degrees of global warming are now: from high
to very high between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC1 (Unique and threatened
systems) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1°C and
1.5°C for RFC2 (Extreme weather events) (medium confidence); from
moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC3 (Distribution of
impacts) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C
and 2.5°C for RFC4 (Global aggregate impacts) (medium confidence);
and from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 2.5°C for RFC5
(Large-scale singular events) (medium confidence). {3.5.2}

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Chapter_3_HR.pdf

 

[BritManToo]

34 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Only an idiot would not be alarmed by the recent scientific reports about climate change and the IPCC warnings.

IPCC report AR6 (2022) doesn't seem that alarming.

No dire predictions at all.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I think the problem with the alarmists is that most of the people claiming science science science barely seen to understand arithmetic. 

 

I have never claimed the Earth was not warming, or that human activity is not impacting the climate, I have in fact stated the opposite any number of times, yet I am called a denialist. 

 

 

 

Since you haven't stated your position here in even broad strokes, I reckon you're going to have to get used to being called a denialist. Of course, that might be altered if you actually divulge the relevant aspects of your stance.

[Jacques Clouseau]

34 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

I think that pretty much gets at the crux of it. People with money will do what it takes to keep that money, and people without are too concerned about putting food on the table to be able to think about much else. And the current mode of neoliberal capitalism just exacerbates this, by increasing the wealth gap, which is happening worldwide.

 

As for whether fear is more a motivating factor or a paralyzing one, I’m sure there are arguments on both sides!

This is something that scares me much more than climate change btw. We have no idea how to fundamentally reshape a system that is preventing us to move forward. Nobody really know how to change the way people conceptualize the world. The WEF is trying to - it seems - but it has been a total failure so far. This will cause problems well before anything serious happens related to global warming.

[scottiejohn]

34 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

edit: well, apart from cow farts.

And the hot air coming out from many "on the band wagon" posters around the world just quoting other people/posts!

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

This is something that scares me much more than climate change btw. We have no idea how to fundamentally reshape a system that is preventing us to move forward. Nobody really know how to change the way people conceptualize the world. The WEF is trying to - it seems - but it has been a total failure so far. This will cause problems well before anything serious happens related to global warming.

Because nothing serious is already happening due to global warming?

[Mark Nothing]

The potential promise of science has metastasized from a valuable tool to enhance all our lives into a false religion.

 

I don't believe these climate change stories.  Science only prooves whatever the highest bidder wants it to and we only hear the reports that benefit the billionaires attempting to become trillionaires.  It is so absurd now that I automatically take the opposite side of whatever is reported.

[placeholder]

Just now, scottiejohn said:

And the hot air coming out from many "on the band wagon" posters around the world just quoting other people/posts!

Yes, when it comes to scientific issues, creativity is crucial. Far more relevant than citing the findings of scientists.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mark Nothing said:

The potential promise of science has metastasized from a valuable tool to enhance all our lives into a false religion.

 

I don't believe these climate change stories.  Science only prooves whatever the highest bidder wants it to and we only hear the reports that benefit the billionaires attempting to become trillionaires.  It is so absurd now that I automatically take the opposite side of whatever is reported.

Another conspiracy theorist.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

The potential promise of science has metastasized from a valuable tool to enhance all our lives into a false religion.

 

I don't believe these climate change stories.  Science only prooves whatever the highest bidder wants it to and we only hear the reports that benefit the billionaires attempting to become trillionaires.  It is so absurd now that I automatically take the opposite side of whatever is reported.

wow. Halleluja.

[scottiejohn]

Just now, placeholder said:

Another conspiracy theorist.

Aren't you one for believing the opposite of the person you just quoted?

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

IPCC report AR6 (2022) doesn't seem that alarming.

No dire predictions at all.

 

[placeholder]

Just now, scottiejohn said:

Aren't you one for believing the opposite of the person you just quoted?

I have no idea what your point is unless you mean that I don't believe that there is a conspiracy among climatologists to promote falsehoods. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Aww, sweetie. You didn't think he'd read the report did you?

[Jacques Clouseau]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There are climate denialists, there are climate alarmists, and then there are are climatologists. You know, climate scientists. And their consensus is that it's going to get pretty grim if the average temperature increase from the baseline goes over 1.5C and a lot grimmer if it goes over 2 C. You can read the latest IPCC summary report.

It begins with an executive summary. If you want to see a summary of the summary, so to speak, of how their risk assessment has grown grimmer over time, you can skip the details and just go to page 181, a segment of which is quoted here. (AR5 is the previous report.)

 

Increased Reasons for Concern
There are multiple lines of evidence that since AR5 the assessed
levels of risk increased for four of the five Reasons for Concern
(RFCs) for global warming levels of up to 2°C (high confidence).
The risk transitions by degrees of global warming are now: from high
to very high between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC1 (Unique and threatened
systems) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1°C and
1.5°C for RFC2 (Extreme weather events) (medium confidence); from
moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC3 (Distribution of
impacts) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C
and 2.5°C for RFC4 (Global aggregate impacts) (medium confidence);
and from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 2.5°C for RFC5
(Large-scale singular events) (medium confidence). {3.5.2}

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Chapter_3_HR.pdf

 

I've read the IPCC report once. Never understood the value of it. The basic idea throughout the report was "at +3°c things would be worse than at 2°c and at 2°c things would be worse than at 1.5°c". No way? Really? Thank you captain obvious. Plus nothing is properly defined. What is a "reason for concern"? What is considered a "risk"? etc... Without proper definition and the use of cryptic language what is one supposed to do with this crap ?

 

On top of that - and this is to me the biggest flaw - it does take into account the ability of humans to adapt. Let's say there is an increased risk of tornados - like super massive scary ones. What does it tell us about the future for humans? Nothing. Why? Because there is no way to know how humans will adapt. Maybe AI will make it incredibly easy to predict those monsters and maybe humans will build their homes underground in those areas. If so the result might be less deaths than ever before and super low insurance costs. Who knows? Nobody.

 

The truth is we lve in a pretty generic world right now. A condo in Miami, in Paris and in Bangkok are roughly build the same way. Maybe tomorrow humans will start to build differently depending on where they live? Some will be underground, others will live at night, others might even live under the sea for all we know.

 

That's the reason I can't stand alarmists. They are unimaginative morons and I suspect they secretly enjoy living in their little inner drama because modern life has become so boring for them. lol

 

Anyway I could go on and on...

 

Here is another rule to be used in manipulating people. When you don't really know what you're talking about, use cryptic language and remain evasive. Essentially behave like an economist you know.

"The economy is fine but I can see clouds on the horizon"

Hahahahaaaaaaaaa!! Yeah, right...

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

I've read the IPCC report once. Never understood the value of it. The basic idea throughout the report was "at +3°c things would be worse than at 2°c and at 2°c things would be worse than at 1.5°c". No way? Really? Thank you captain obvious. Plus nothing is properly defined. What is a "reason for concern"? What is considered a "risk"? etc... Without proper definition and the use of cryptic language what is one supposed to do with this crap ?

 

On top of that - and this is to me the biggest flaw - it does take into account the ability of humans to adapt. Let's say there is an increased risk of tornados - like super massive scary ones. What does it tell us about the future for humans? Nothing. Why? Because there is no way to know how humans will adapt. Maybe AI will make it incredibly easy to predict those monsters and maybe humans will build their homes underground in those areas. If so the result might be less deaths than ever before and super low insurance costs. Who knows? Nobody.

 

The truth is we lve in a pretty generic world right now. A condo in Miami, in Paris and in Bangkok are roughly build the same way. Maybe tomorrow humans will start to build differently depending on where they live? Some will be underground, others will live at night, others might even live under the sea for all we know.

 

That's the reason I can't stand alarmists. They are unimaginative morons and I suspect they secretly enjoy living in their little inner drama because modern life has become so boring for them. lol

 

Anyway I could go on and on...

 

Here is another rule to be used in manipulating people. When you don't really know what you're talking about, use cryptic language and remain evasive. Essentially behave like an economist you know.

"The economy is fine but I can see clouds on the horizon"

Hahahahaaaaaaaaa!! Yeah, right...

 

You detest alarmists for reasons that live entirely in your own head and aren't representative of what motivates alarmists at all. It's actually climate change.

[Jacques Clouseau]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because nothing serious is already happening due to global warming?

Really depends what you mean by serious I guess.

The war in Ukraine is causing far more damage than global warming for example.

And the war in Ukraine isn't WW2 - far from it.

[Jacques Clouseau]

30 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

The potential promise of science has metastasized from a valuable tool to enhance all our lives into a false religion.

 

I don't believe these climate change stories.  Science only prooves whatever the highest bidder wants it to and we only hear the reports that benefit the billionaires attempting to become trillionaires.  It is so absurd now that I automatically take the opposite side of whatever is reported.

That's a bit extreme, bro...

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

Really depends what you mean by serious I guess.

The war in Ukraine is causing far more damage than global warming for example.

And the war in Ukraine isn't WW2 - far from it.

That's true. Is it a reason to ignore or, in your case, deflect from climate change?

[Jacques Clouseau]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You detest alarmists for reasons that live entirely in your own head and aren't representative of what motivates alarmists at all. It's actually climate change.

See you do it again. Rather than making your point, you attack me.

Of course I detest alarmists for reasons that live in my head.

Where else are these reasons supposed to live exactly ?

Alarmists are motivated by many different things.

But the common denominator seems to be the moronic idea that scaring people is a effective strategy.

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work. At all.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Jacques Clouseau said:

See you do it again. Rather than making your point, you attack me.

Of course I detest alarmists for reasons that live in my head.

Where else are these reasons supposed to live exactly ?

Alarmists are motivated by many different things.

But the common denominator seems to be the moronic idea that scaring people is a effective strategy.

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work. At all.

The reasons are meant to live in scientific research papers and nowhere else. That's what alarmists believe.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Perhaps you'd like to give me a lesson by explaining where my arithmetic is wrong instead of just trolling?

You claimed: "...warming is 100% caused by burning fossil fuels." 

 

That is just wrong on so many levels, arithmetically being a just one. 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

You claimed: "...warming is 100% caused by burning fossil fuels." 

 

That is just wrong on so many levels, arithmetically being a just one. 

 

Prove the math. Other than methane gas which is mainly produced by livestock, what other factor is making even an iota of difference?