Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"  (Read 9001 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #150 on: August 05, 2017, 03:02:25 AM »
The real question that should be the focus of public discussion is not whether climate change is real, it is what to do about it.  As I have said repeatedly, in my opinion, what we should do is to support the generations that will survive the coming socio-economic collapse circa 2050-2060:

Title: “We'll never tackle climate change if academics keep the focus on consensus”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/aug/01/well-never-tackle-climate-change-if-academics-keep-the-focus-on-consensus

Extract: “Media and political attention is being wasted on boosting the public’s notion of scientific consensus, crowding out more important discussion and action”
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #151 on: August 05, 2017, 08:39:01 AM »
In you missed it August 2, 2017 was overshoot day (see plot for the 1969-2017 record):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-overshoot-day-2-august-2017-year-planet-natural-resources-clean-water-soil-air-pollution-wwf-a7872086.html

Extract: “By August 2 2017, we will have used more from Nature than our planet can renew in the whole year,…”
« Last Edit: August 05, 2017, 03:48:02 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #152 on: August 05, 2017, 08:48:21 AM »
We haven't seen anything yet:

Title: "Extreme weather seen killing 152,000 Europeans a year by 2100"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-europe-weather-idUSKBN1AK2HU

Extract: "The team looked at disaster records from 1981 to 2010 to estimate population vulnerability, then combined this with modelling of how climate change might progress and how populations might increase and migrate.

Their findings suggested heat waves would be the most lethal weather-related disaster and could cause 99 percent of all future weather-related deaths in Europe – rising from 2,700 deaths a year between 1981 and 2010 to 151,500 deaths a year in 2071 to 2100.

The results also predicted a substantial rise in deaths from coastal flooding, from six deaths a year at the start of the century to 233 a year by the end of it."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #153 on: August 05, 2017, 11:02:34 PM »
That's one way of keeping the population in check.




Coffee Drinker

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #154 on: August 06, 2017, 05:08:57 AM »
Those type of studies are not helping at all. Nothing but alarmism with the consequence that real science is not taken serious anymore.

Even common sense tells me that there wont be hundred thousands additional death in Europe from higher temperatures. I lived many years in Australia and people don't die there in the thousands from the heat. The key is adaption which is very simple: Air conditioning.

And look at southern Europe, they have been living in a hot climate but still are on of the healthiest Europeans wit the longest life expectancy. The key is behavioral adaption.

Its completely nonsense to expect that Europeans won't adapt to changing temperatures and just die from the heat.

Sorry for the rant, but this type of studies destroy the reputation of good and objective science.

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #155 on: August 06, 2017, 10:01:19 AM »
Idk, they could also drive as many modern cars have ac. Anyway the sum probably includes the estimated immigrants numbers. (Modded: well maybe solar-powered ac. The same apparatus could be used for pumping cool waters for droughts.)
« Last Edit: August 06, 2017, 05:06:47 PM by Pmt111500 »
A quantity relates to a quantum like camel's back relates to camel's _______ ? (back, vertebra, vertebral tendon, spinal disc, paralysis)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #156 on: August 06, 2017, 04:50:40 PM »
Even common sense tells me that there wont be hundred thousands additional death in Europe from higher temperatures. I lived many years in Australia and people don't die there in the thousands from the heat. The key is adaption which is very simple: Air conditioning.
 

Then why did 35,000 Europeans die in one heatwave in 2003?  Were these people all less intelligent than Australians, or are we talking about the old, the sick, the poor and the weak that have and will continue to pay the price for our collective foolishness?

Title: "European heatwave caused 35,000 deaths"

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths/

Extract: "At least 35,000 people died as a result of the record heatwave that scorched Europe in August 2003, says an environmental think tank.

The Earth Policy Institute (EPI), based in Washington DC, warns that such deaths are likely to increase, as “even more extreme weather events lie ahead”."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #157 on: August 06, 2017, 05:05:28 PM »
What makes climate change so difficult to fight is not due to some perverse aspect of Mother Nature, it is because humans put up so much resistance to changing their BAU behavior.  The linked Scribbler article illustrates this with regard to the electric vehicles and the associated clean grid (I note that Detroit is dragging their collective feet and are falling far behind Tesla in this coming market):

Title: "George Monbiot Just Attacked a Key Solution to Climate Change — Why?"

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/08/04/george-monbiot-just-attacked-a-key-solution-to-climate-change-why/

Extract: "Electric vehicles and a clean grid are essential to arresting climate change"

Caption for attached image: (Increased adoption rates of electrical vehicles will reduce oil consumption and at the same time erode the power of industries that have for so long blocked green initiatives like public transportation, ride sharing, and walkable and bikeable cities. Why throw water on a much-needed energy revolution that would be very helpful by providing air in the room for green causes? Image source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.)
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #158 on: August 06, 2017, 05:16:50 PM »
In the past three decades climate change has already accounted for about 59,000 suicides in India, and with continued warming, this rate should increase sharply:

Title: "Farmer suicides rise in India as climate warms, study shows"

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-farmer-suicides-india-climate.html

Extract: "A study suggests India will see more such tragedies as climate change brings hotter temperatures that damage crops and exacerbate drought. For every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F) during the growing season in India, there are 67 more suicides on average, according to the findings published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS.

For the study, researcher Tamma Carleton looked at suicide data from India's National Crime Records Bureau between 1967 and 2013, along with data on agricultural crop yields and on temperature change.

"I estimate that warming temperature trends over the last three decades have already been responsible for over 59,000 suicides throughout India," writes Carleton, who studies agriculture and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley. In other words, warmer temperatures were a factor accounting for a 6.8 percent increase in suicides, the study says."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #159 on: August 06, 2017, 06:07:00 PM »
Those type of studies are not helping at all. Nothing but alarmism with the consequence that real science is not taken serious anymore.


 Real science is not taken serious anymore because there is a concerted effort to hide the effects of climate change to prolong fossil fuel interests. This effort is similar to the "cigarrete are good" and "leaded fuel is good" misinformation campaign but with much higher stakes  both in terms of profit and deceit.


Even common sense tells me that there wont be hundred thousands additional death in Europe from higher temperatures.



Common sense is a funny thing. It tells me the exact opposite. To avoid the pitfalls of common sense we can use science, and the science is very clear. Heat waves are already killing people and that number will increase.

I lived many years in Australia and people don't die there in the thousands from the heat


Yes they do.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/heatwaves-in-australia-this-natural-killer-just-got-deadlier/news-story/7876bd4840e7cbc126c7a04dfa5c8973

 But remember this is global warming, as we depart the temperatures of the 20th century heat waves event will become more frequent and more intense, increasing exponentially with an asymptote at 35C with 100% humidity.

The key is adaption which is very simple: Air conditioning.


Air conditioning is one of the many adaptations but it is by no means simple. Higher temperatures will endanger the power grid at the most important times. There are operational limits for AC, on top of the enormous expenditure that AC for billions of people would cost.



And look at southern Europe, they have been living in a hot climate but still are on of the healthiest Europeans wit the longest life expectancy. 


Yes, and what comes after that? Maybe looking  a little further south would give a clue? 

The key is behavioral adaption.


If we adapt like animals, just waiting for the environmental change and then adapt to those changes many people will fail to adapt. If we take advantage of our "humanness", that is, we use technology to adapt  before the environment forces us to adapt, then less people will fail to adapt.


Sorry for the rant, but this type of studies destroy the reputation of good and objective science.



No they don't. They sound the alarm so that others can act appropriately. The problem is that they sound so scary that  many people immediately disregard them. It is a well know "fact" that announced catastrophes are always fake. Regrettably that is not a fact, it is merely confirmation bias.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #160 on: August 07, 2017, 08:23:38 PM »
In the past three decades climate change has already accounted for about 59,000 suicides in India, and with continued warming, this rate should increase sharply:

Title: "Farmer suicides rise in India as climate warms, study shows"

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-farmer-suicides-india-climate.html

Extract: "A study suggests India will see more such tragedies as climate change brings hotter temperatures that damage crops and exacerbate drought. For every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F) during the growing season in India, there are 67 more suicides on average, according to the findings published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS.

For the study, researcher Tamma Carleton looked at suicide data from India's National Crime Records Bureau between 1967 and 2013, along with data on agricultural crop yields and on temperature change.

"I estimate that warming temperature trends over the last three decades have already been responsible for over 59,000 suicides throughout India," writes Carleton, who studies agriculture and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley. In other words, warmer temperatures were a factor accounting for a 6.8 percent increase in suicides, the study says."

Unfortunately, this study is abiguous.  It assumes that the only factor contributing to suicides over the past 46 years is temperature.  They have completely ignored the large impacts of middle men and money lenders in the equation.  Not to mention the cahnging economic conditions in India over the past four and half decades.  Very simplistic conclusion.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #161 on: August 07, 2017, 11:07:36 PM »

Unfortunately, this study is abiguous.  It assumes that the only factor contributing to suicides over the past 46 years is temperature.  They have completely ignored the large impacts of middle men and money lenders in the equation.  Not to mention the cahnging economic conditions in India over the past four and half decades.  Very simplistic conclusion.

FTA

For every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F) during the growing season in India, there are 67 more suicides on average, according to the findings published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS.

That seems very clear to me and it is the expected outcome.

Do you actually think there is no merit to the correlation? To me it makes all the sense in the world. Perhaps you believe that human behavior is mostly independent from its environment?
 
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #162 on: August 08, 2017, 04:14:54 AM »

Unfortunately, this study is abiguous.  It assumes that the only factor contributing to suicides over the past 46 years is temperature.  They have completely ignored the large impacts of middle men and money lenders in the equation.  Not to mention the cahnging economic conditions in India over the past four and half decades.  Very simplistic conclusion.

FTA

For every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F) during the growing season in India, there are 67 more suicides on average, according to the findings published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS.

That seems very clear to me and it is the expected outcome.

Do you actually think there is no merit to the correlation? To me it makes all the sense in the world. Perhaps you believe that human behavior is mostly independent from its environment?

There are so many possible explanations, that to attribute 6% of the increase to climate change seems rather preposterous.  The uncertainties associated with the other causes would surely overwhelm any correlation of such limited extent.  The authors give no explanation as to why this could be gleaned from the data.  The increase could just as easily been tied to increased air pollution during the same time frame.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1500
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #163 on: August 08, 2017, 07:10:51 AM »
Waittaminnit. There is nothing in the study regarding the expansion of dealer controlled hybrid (GMO and otherwise) seedstock requiring expensive dealer controlled fertilizer and dealer controlled herbicide during those same years.

Small farmers in india have been screwed for centuries. the book "Late Victorian Holocausts" is worth reading for people with strong stomachs. Now they are further screwed.

sidd

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #164 on: August 08, 2017, 01:10:50 PM »

There are so many possible explanations, that to attribute 6% of the increase to climate change seems rather preposterous.  The uncertainties associated with the other causes would surely overwhelm any correlation of such limited extent.  The authors give no explanation as to why this could be gleaned from the data.  The increase could just as easily been tied to increased air pollution during the same time frame.


Is that your opinion or do you have any good science and logic to back it up? Because reading the article, the authors do acknowledge confounding variables. You seem to be saying that it can not be climate change because it is too scary to be true. That's not a good reason.

I think that the disagreement lies on the perceived impact of the climate on society.  The way you use words like "preposterous" indicate to me that you find climatic disruption of society a rare occurrence. I find it the total opposite.  The climate is one of the primary drivers of society, if not the primary one. The climate dictates economies, living conditions, activity levels, cultural practices and many aspects of society. This is hard to see because if the climate is about the same for a long time people become perfectly adapted to it and take it for granted.

  That scientist find a statistical link between suicide rates and heat and drought spells make perfect biological, social, business and thermodynamic sense.  That these scientist found this correlation is completely expected. Heat  and drought outside of normal parameters cause distress in multiple ways. These leads to loses, that might lead to suicide. It makes perfect sense


So seriously, why do you think it is preposterous that heatwaves and droughts are linked to suicides?   The burden of proof is on you to prove that societies are inmune to heat and drought.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #165 on: August 08, 2017, 02:21:14 PM »

There are so many possible explanations, that to attribute 6% of the increase to climate change seems rather preposterous.  The uncertainties associated with the other causes would surely overwhelm any correlation of such limited extent.  The authors give no explanation as to why this could be gleaned from the data.  The increase could just as easily been tied to increased air pollution during the same time frame.



Is that your opinion or do you have any good science and logic to back it up? Because reading the article, the authors do acknowledge confounding variables. You seem to be saying that it can not be climate change because it is too scary to be true. That's not a good reason.

I think that the disagreement lies on the perceived impact of the climate on society.  The way you use words like "preposterous" indicate to me that you find climatic disruption of society a rare occurrence. I find it the total opposite.  The climate is one of the primary drivers of society, if not the primary one. The climate dictates economies, living conditions, activity levels, cultural practices and many aspects of society. This is hard to see because if the climate is about the same for a long time people become perfectly adapted to it and take it for granted.

  That scientist find a statistical link between suicide rates and heat and drought spells make perfect biological, social, business and thermodynamic sense.  That these scientist found this correlation is completely expected. Heat  and drought outside of normal parameters cause distress in multiple ways. These leads to loses, that might lead to suicide. It makes perfect sense


So seriously, why do you think it is preposterous that heatwaves and droughts are linked to suicides?   The burden of proof is on you to prove that societies are inmune to heat and drought.


Reading her work, she states, "It’s important to note that this is not a deterministic relationship between temperature and suicide."  She also acknowledged that increased rainfall had an equal, but opposite effect. 

Previous work on the climatic influences on Indian agriculture have not shown the negative effect she claims.  Over the time frame of her work, the temperature increase has had an overall positive effect on crop yields (rice being the lone exception).  Similarly, precipitation increases have had an overall positive effect on crop yields (wheat being the lone exception).  This study found that "observed climate trends over the past 50 years have had almost no measurable
effects on the crop yields."  Interannual variability has been a larger influence on crop yields, which appears to overwhelm her results.

http://hpccc.gov.in/PDF/Agriculture/Climate%20Change%20and%20Crop%20Yields%20in%20India.pdf

Additionally, recent air pollution trends in India may have adversely affected crop yields, outweighing any climatic increases.

http://www.scidev.net/south-asia/agriculture/news/air-pollution-hits-crops-more-than-climate-change.html

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #166 on: August 08, 2017, 07:03:10 PM »
Reading her work, she states, "It’s important to note that this is not a deterministic relationship between temperature and suicide."  She also acknowledged that increased rainfall had an equal, but opposite effect. 

Of course, correlation does not imply causation, we all know that and the author acknowledges it for the sake of the ones who don't know about it and the ones trying to take advantage of that fact to frame the article in a bad light.  The fact that correlation does not imply causation doesn't make the claims "preposterous".   Correlation is an important analytical tool, specially when taken in the right context. The right context is a warming planet with a changing climate and its effect on everything from agriculture to psychology.

Previous work on the climatic influences on Indian agriculture have not shown the negative effect she claims.

The paper you posted talks about yields, not about economics or psychology. You have not sustained your claim.


Previous work on the climatic influences on Indian agriculture have not shown the negative effect she claims.  Over the time frame of her work, the temperature increase has had an overall positive effect on crop yields (rice being the lone exception).  Similarly, precipitation increases have had an overall positive effect on crop yields (wheat being the lone exception).

Agricultural yields are completely different thing from the economics of agriculture and the psychology of farmers. Yields are just the net mass of usable agricultural products and say  nothing about the economics of agriculture. For example, it doesn't matter if it took a thousand small farmers or 1 modern mega farm to produce any given yield, what matter is that at the end of the accounting period that yield is in the market. As another example,  if a farmer has additional expenditures to adapt to climate change the economics of that crop might still be affected by climate change even if the adaptation was successful in terms of yield. The crop could be successful and counted but the economics of the farm may not add up.
 

This study found that "observed climate trends over the past 50 years have had almost no measurable effects on the crop yields."

You NEED to read the caveats to that conclusion. They are right there on the paper you posted in the conclusions. It is likely that  so far, technological, political, financial or other advances made up for some of the negative side effects of global warming.






I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #167 on: August 08, 2017, 08:25:39 PM »
Suicide rates for farmers is about double the rate for other occupations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terezia-farkas/why-farmer-suicide-rates-_1_b_5610279.html

So after doing your best and getting your ass kicked enough times by the weather, the prices, disease in your herd, or a million other things you can't control , throwing in the towel becomes an option.
Climate change is only going to add risk and extra pressures to an ongoing problem. Some places may actually get better due to increased rainfall but they won't compensate for the negative effects of heat and drought elsewhere.
 When farmers are expected to convert to zero carbon farming we should expect more failures on the farm unless farm prices compensate for conversion costs. IMO ,expect very few farmers to successfully make the conversion and suicide rates to increase in other occupations as food prices spike.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #168 on: August 08, 2017, 08:57:02 PM »
Reading her work, she states, "It’s important to note that this is not a deterministic relationship between temperature and suicide."  She also acknowledged that increased rainfall had an equal, but opposite effect. 


Of course, correlation does not imply causation, we all know that and the author acknowledges it for the sake of the ones who don't know about it and the ones trying to take advantage of that fact to frame the article in a bad light.  The fact that correlation does not imply causation doesn't make the claims "preposterous".   Correlation is an important analytical tool, specially when taken in the right context. The right context is a warming planet with a changing climate and its effect on everything from agriculture to psychology.

Previous work on the climatic influences on Indian agriculture have not shown the negative effect she claims.


The paper you posted talks about yields, not about economics or psychology. You have not sustained your claim.


Previous work on the climatic influences on Indian agriculture have not shown the negative effect she claims.  Over the time frame of her work, the temperature increase has had an overall positive effect on crop yields (rice being the lone exception).  Similarly, precipitation increases have had an overall positive effect on crop yields (wheat being the lone exception).


Agricultural yields are completely different thing from the economics of agriculture and the psychology of farmers. Yields are just the net mass of usable agricultural products and say  nothing about the economics of agriculture. For example, it doesn't matter if it took a thousand small farmers or 1 modern mega farm to produce any given yield, what matter is that at the end of the accounting period that yield is in the market. As another example,  if a farmer has additional expenditures to adapt to climate change the economics of that crop might still be affected by climate change even if the adaptation was successful in terms of yield. The crop could be successful and counted but the economics of the farm may not add up.
 

This study found that "observed climate trends over the past 50 years have had almost no measurable effects on the crop yields."


You NEED to read the caveats to that conclusion. They are right there on the paper you posted in the conclusions. It is likely that  so far, technological, political, financial or other advances made up for some of the negative side effects of global warming.


If the technological, political, financial or other advances made up for some of the negative side effects of global warming, would they not have resulted in improvements to the farmers in question?  If you noticed, she referred to crop "yields", not the economics of agriculture, claiming that these have decreased, while others studies state they have increased.  In these and other reports, the temperature increase appears to be the smallest influence, yet she clings to her claim that the recent warming is responsible (that is causation, not correlation) for 6.8% of the increase in suicides.   IF she had really wanted to make this claim, then she should have examined the effects of these other factors more thoroughly, to see if she could remove their contributions and still make the same claim.  Stating that she "cannot rule out other factors that might correlate with both climate and suicide," seems to contradict her confidence in her conclusion.  This report comes on top of the refuted report a few years ago claiming that GMOs in India were causing the increase in suicides among farmers. 

http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/01/07/vandana-shivas-myth-busted-monsanto-didnt-cause-farmer-suicides-india-10696

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #169 on: August 08, 2017, 11:55:52 PM »
Denialist use 'Groupthink' to help them believe that they can isolate themselves from 'Mother Nature'.  Good luck with that approach:

Title: "Groupthink"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Extract: "Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #170 on: August 09, 2017, 02:06:37 AM »
Denialist use 'Groupthink' to help them believe that they can isolate themselves from 'Mother Nature'.  Good luck with that approach:

Title: "Groupthink"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Extract: "Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences."

"Consensus without evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences."  Now, where I have heard that before?  Oh yeah, climate alarmism.  Good description.  Thanks.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #171 on: August 09, 2017, 03:25:35 AM »
If the technological, political, financial or other advances made up for some of the negative side effects of global warming, would they not have resulted in improvements to the farmers in question?


Not necessarily. As I said before, a farmer may find a technological adaptation to their crops but the extra cost may bankrupt them. It could also be that the technological advances are coming from large scale farming groups, while farmers that use the traditional techniques are left behind.



If you noticed, she referred to crop "yields", not the economics of agriculture, claiming that these have decreased, while others studies state they have increased.


Did you even read the article? She made a statistical analysis using regional temperatures, crop yields and suicides. The result of that was a statistically significant correlation between higher temperatures and suicides. She did not claim that yields went up, and it doesn't matter if they went up, down or remained constant.  The claim is:

For every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F) during the growing season in India, there are 67 more suicides on average


This should not be surprising to anyone familiar with how the environment affects society, but it is nice to get a strong link. This is also not alarming (unless you are a poor farmer in India, or depend on a poor farmer in India), it is only one more piece on the overwhelming evidence that global warming will be deadly. However you seem all freaked out about it to the point of disregarding relatively simple truths. You get weather that's too hot and dry for the local infrastructure and culture and you get all kinds of trouble. That is simple common sense.

That you find this relatively straight forward correlation alarming is absolute craziness to me. This is not alarming by a long shot, there are scarier real threats around. Yet to you this is "preposterous".  I stand by my initial opinion that you severely underestimate the influence of the  climate in our lives.

Let me suggest some links:

As Temperatures Rise, Empires Fall: Heat and Human Behavior

http://science.time.com/2013/08/02/as-temperatures-rise-empires-fall-heat-and-human-behavior/

People really do behave worse in hot weather—and whole nations do too



Summer Heat and Human Behavior

https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/summer-heat-and-human-behavior/

There are also some serious mental health issues that result from the heat. This is evidenced by the fact that there is an increase in psychiatric hospitalizations during the summer months. There is also an increase in suicide attempts, acts of violence, increased irritable and angry mood. Hot weather also causes people to feel tired and unmotivated to do very much.


How Does a Heat Wave Affect the Human Body?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-wave-health/

Some might like it hot, but extreme heat can overpower the human body. An expert from the CDC explains how heat kills and why fans are worthless in the face of truly high temperatures


 

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #172 on: August 09, 2017, 02:36:37 PM »
May I suggest some other relevent reading:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7741/d80a270e3e5869d0d950e2b5f75188283a99.pdf

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/site/Papers_files/Cullen.et.al.2000.pdf

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~adk/research/MongolEmpireClimate/

https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/SPANLL152/%CE%9A%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE/%CE%9C%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B7%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE/%CE%A0%CF%84%CF%8E%CF%83%CE%B7_%CE%9C%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B12.pdf

Past changes towards colder,drier climates have led to the demise of several ancient civilizations, while wamer,wetter climate has resulted in growth and expansion.  Perhaps that is the major cause behind the population explosion of the past century, as we have recoverd from the LIA.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #173 on: August 09, 2017, 04:41:08 PM »
The linked op-ed piece makes the case that collectively we had better wise-up fast if we want a decent life for coming generations:

Title: "When optimism spells disaster…"

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/optimism/

Extract: "One of the most dangerous threats to the human future in this, the Age of Perils, is … optimism.

To overcome them humanity doesn’t need optimism or pessimism. It needs to exercise a singular attribute that has stood us in good stead for over a million years: wisdom."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #174 on: August 09, 2017, 05:43:18 PM »
Thanks for that, aslr. It's a hard concept for many/most to hear, in my experience.

And thanks for those excellent points, arch. Of course, warmer global temps mean wetter conditions on average in some areas, and drier in others, especially the interiors of continent (for example, Mongolia).

A couple other points to keep in mind: More crops are destroyed every year by flooding than by drought. So wetter does not necessarily mean 'better for crops'...not by a long shot.

Also, of course, we have now moved out of the 'goldilocks' global temperature zone (and definitely the atmospheric CO2 concentration range) that we have been in throughout the holocene. So comparisons to periods of relative wetness in that period are becoming less and less relevant. The areas that will see increased wetness going forward will see rain bombs and flooding unlike anything in the holocene record.

(I won't respond directly to DB, since he has shown himself to be a straightout denialist (with terms from the denialist playbook like 'climate alarmist,' and 'LIA' as if it were globally relevant), and I have not found discussions with that sort to be very...fruitful. And predictably he will now whine about 'climate alarmists' blocking out 'alternative facts' or some such nonsense. Let him whine.)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #175 on: August 09, 2017, 06:14:36 PM »
Past changes towards colder,drier climates have led to the demise of several ancient civilizations, while wamer,wetter climate has resulted in growth and expansion.  Perhaps that is the major cause behind the population explosion of the past century, as we have recoverd from the LIA.

Both warmer and colder climate change have resulted in both destruction of civilizations and population explosions. That is just the natural variation of the climate.
From your first link, my emphasis: 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7741/d80a270e3e5869d0d950e2b5f75188283a99.pdf

The climate is always changing, but the degree, frequency,
and location of the changes vary significantly. Relative to the late
Holocene period, multi proxy indicators point to a low range of
variability from 100 b.c. to 800 a.d.
But even small changes in the
overall scope of Holocene climate variability can, under certain
conditions, have notable effects on civilizations.

This is a very good paper. Loved it. And this paper reinforces the farmer suicide study. Even during the roman period, 200-800 AC, the slight climate variations that happened at the time had effects on society. I bet that during the peaks of the warm period during 200-800 ac  farmers lost their crops  in the same ways that the the peaks of the coldest periods farmers lost their crops for entire different reasons. I bet during both extremes suicides rates went up.

What is happening now, and the reason for the authors caveat, can be best appreciated by looking at the graph attached. I took that from the appendix of  your link.

Please notice the rate of change and behavior during the years 200-800. That is comparable to the 20th century. Now look at at the year 2000. Notice the spike? Mind you that is the year 2000, if the years up to 2016 were included the spike would look even higher. The normal thing would have been for a cold cycle to set in, instead we are going into ever higher temperatures.

If the high but normal temperatures for the last 2000 years caused societal change, then higher temperatures that depart the range of the last two millennia is very likely to multiply the effect.



Your second link documents the disappearance of a civilization due to climate change. It reinforces my point, I'm not sure what you expect to gain from it.


Your third link shows that Mongolians benefited from a warmer climate, but what about the civilizations that Mongolia invaded? It can be argued that the environment that gave one civilization the advantage also gave a disadvantage to the conquered civilizations.   
Just in case you don't know, the greatest risk of climate change is war.


Your fourth link is more of the same. Climate change can cause entire civilizations to collapse, and that's just regular climate change within the normal boundaries temperatures of the Holocene. Human induced climate change, because is taking humanity outside of that normal variability in a very short time is likely to be much worse.



Again, you have completely fail to defend your point that linking suicides of poor farmers under climatic strains is somehow "preposterours". It is not, it is fully expected. The fact that you call it alarming is a reflection of your fears, not of calculated logic.

Please retract your statement, we need everyone to sound the alarm on climate change. Too many people are hiding their heads under the sand.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #176 on: August 09, 2017, 07:56:13 PM »
Thanks for that, aslr. It's a hard concept for many/most to hear, in my experience.

And thanks for those excellent points, arch. Of course, warmer global temps mean wetter conditions on average in some areas, and drier in others, especially the interiors of continent (for example, Mongolia).

A couple other points to keep in mind: More crops are destroyed every year by flooding than by drought. So wetter does not necessarily mean 'better for crops'...not by a long shot.

Also, of course, we have now moved out of the 'goldilocks' global temperature zone (and definitely the atmospheric CO2 concentration range) that we have been in throughout the holocene. So comparisons to periods of relative wetness in that period are becoming less and less relevant. The areas that will see increased wetness going forward will see rain bombs and flooding unlike anything in the holocene record.

(I won't respond directly to DB, since he has shown himself to be a straightout denialist (with terms from the denialist playbook like 'climate alarmist,' and 'LIA' as if it were globally relevant), and I have not found discussions with that sort to be very...fruitful. And predictably he will now whine about 'climate alarmists' blocking out 'alternative facts' or some such nonsense. Let him whine.)


Contrary to your claim, much published research has shown that drought far exceeds flooding when it comes to crop destruction.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16467.html

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5128e.pdf

I see you prefer to cast false labels on those with whom you disagree, claiming there is some sort of "playbook," even going so far as to deny the scientific evidence for a global Little Ice Age.  Too bad, because discussions with knowledgeable scientists is usually quite fruitful.

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #177 on: August 09, 2017, 07:56:21 PM »
Nicely done, Arch. You have more patience than I.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #178 on: August 09, 2017, 07:59:26 PM »
Those who are not alarmed by our rapidly changing climate simply don't understand the subject.


I was very interested in Archimid's stating that, "the greatest risk of climate change is war." History I believe would bear him out, yet somehow, even among the community of those very aware of what we are doing to ourselves as CO2-e increases each year, there exists a subset who believe strongly that world wide military domination is our best move going forward.


We don't need conflict while facing a warming world, we need cooperation. Our enemy is not Kim Jong un, or Putin, or Xi, our enemy is our own hesitancy at making meaningful cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions.
Every trillion dollars we spend on armaments could have built a new smart grid, could have completed our transition to renewables and could have built out a North American High Speed Rail Network. Others have made real advances in transportation, clean energy, even cleaner air and water. We instead demand that our partners increase their "defense" spending, and force our "enemies" to divert even more of their GDP into projects that try to protect them from our military's might.


It's not the Democrats who did this, or the Republicans, or even a Triumphant Trump. Eisenhower warned us of what he dubbed the Military Industrial Complex. Today we speak of The Deep State. By whatever name they're the unelected scum that are poisoning our wells and our air, destroying our media, assassinating world leaders, and stealing so much money that we can't afford to provide healthcare, research global warming, or even attempt to mitigate the harm they have already done.


Remember Pogo
Terry

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #179 on: August 09, 2017, 08:23:53 PM »
Again, and as usual, nicely put, Terry.

The real 'deep state,' as far as I can see, is not so much the legions of mostly faceless bureaucrats (i.e. people who are not particularly ideological, but just very experienced and skilled at doing thankless jobs). Rather it is the mega-corporations in the military procurement (bomb making) industries, along with Wall Street, fossil-death-fuels, and a few other industries.

The MIC will continue to insure that we are involved in hot or simmering wars for as long as they have the power to influence policy.

For further support for my above claim, please see #1 pie chart in figure 4 on page 13 of the linked FAO report that shows that 57.7% of all losses and damage to crops was from flooding, and another 25.4% from storms, which adds up to 83.1% damage and loss of crops from storms and flooding. This enormous figure compares to only 14.6% loss from drought.

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5128e.pdf

Further on why I choose not to engage with trolls: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 09:08:09 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 673
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #180 on: August 09, 2017, 10:18:33 PM »
Some farmers commit suicide when their livelihood is destroyed. In the soviet union when it collapsed life expectancy of men dropped like a stone as industry collapsed -many from booze. There are many ways to commit suicide. Of interest is that life expectancy of women dropped as well but by far less - mostly down to lack of medical care. The general belief that the victory of the West over the USSR was bloodless is a lie.

Severe climate change will cause severe societal disruption probably with the same results for the population in general ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

Agric

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #181 on: August 09, 2017, 11:44:37 PM »
Hi folks, I've been watching you here since it started and at Neven's blog for a few years before that, just lurking, I've had other priorities. Many, many thanks for all the hard work you stalwarts have done and continue to do.

Some things said here, like by TerryM a couple of posts back, have compelled me to register and say my piece. No, not in this thread, today, I'll put it in 'Policy and Solutions' in a few days time. It's called "Frodo's Solution" and you won't like it.


AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #182 on: August 10, 2017, 04:33:07 PM »
We should all recognize that the climate change denialist feel entitled to eat other people's lunch as the true subsidies to fossil fuels was about $5.3 trillion (6.5% of global GDP annually, see the linked reference & associated article) in measurable costs in 2015 alone.  Then on top of that these denialists insists on being entitled to heavily (or completely) discount the present value of probable future damage from climate change, and many (most) of the Paris Accord participants feel entitled to 'cheat' on the data that the submit regarding their emissions compliance.  I think that is time to stop bending over backwards to accommodate these denialist/opportunists & openly discuss the true climate risks that the world is facing:

David Coady et. al. (2017), "How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies?", World Development, Volume 91, March 2017, Pages 11-27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867

Summary: "This paper estimates fossil fuel subsidies and the economic and environmental benefits from reforming them, focusing mostly on a broad notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below supply costs plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes.

Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."

See also:

Title: "Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year

Extract: "Typically, people on the street think of a subsidy as a direct financial cost that result in consumers paying a price that is below the opportunity cost of the product (fossil fuel in this case). However, as pointed out by the authors, a more correct view of the costs would encompass:

"... not only supply costs but also (most importantly) environmental costs like global warming and deaths from air pollution and taxes applied to consumer goods in general."

The authors argue, persuasively, that this broader view of subsidies is the correct view because they “reflect the gap between consumer prices and economically efficient prices.”"
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 05:30:45 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #183 on: August 10, 2017, 05:07:59 PM »
Using Trump supporters as an example, their median household income is $72,000 per year, which is well above the national average.  So is it is ridiculous to accommodate these voters demands for more jobs by relaxing environmental regulations; when numerous studies shows that fighting climate change creates more jobs than relaxing the fossil fuel/environmental regulations would; it is just that these environmental jobs would likely benefit the true 'working-class' rather than entitled-opportunists like the Trump supporters:

Title: "The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

Extract: "His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.

It’s been extremely common for news accounts to portray Donald Trump’s candidacy as a “working-class” rebellion against Republican elites. There are elements of truth in this perspective: Republican voters, especially Trump supporters, are unhappy about the direction of the economy. Trump voters have lower incomes than supporters of John Kasich or Marco Rubio. And things have gone so badly for the Republican “establishment” that the party may be facing an existential crisis.

But the definition of “working class” and similar terms is fuzzy, and narratives like these risk obscuring an important and perhaps counterintuitive fact about Trump’s voters: As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #184 on: August 10, 2017, 06:52:30 PM »
We should all recognize that the climate change denialist feel entitled to eat other people's lunch as the true subsidies to fossil fuels was about $5.3 trillion (6.5% of global GDP annually, see the linked reference & associated article) in measurable costs in 2015 alone.  Then on top of that these denialists insists on being entitled to heavily (or completely) discount the present value of probable future damage from climate change, and many (most) of the Paris Accord participants feel entitled to 'cheat' on the data that the submit regarding their emissions compliance.  I think that is time to stop bending over backwards to accommodate these denialist/opportunists & openly discuss the true climate risks that the world is facing:

David Coady et. al. (2017), "How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies?", World Development, Volume 91, March 2017, Pages 11-27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867

Summary: "This paper estimates fossil fuel subsidies and the economic and environmental benefits from reforming them, focusing mostly on a broad notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below supply costs plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes.

Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."

See also:

Title: "Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year

Extract: "Typically, people on the street think of a subsidy as a direct financial cost that result in consumers paying a price that is below the opportunity cost of the product (fossil fuel in this case). However, as pointed out by the authors, a more correct view of the costs would encompass:

"... not only supply costs but also (most importantly) environmental costs like global warming and deaths from air pollution and taxes applied to consumer goods in general."

The authors argue, persuasively, that this broader view of subsidies is the correct view because they “reflect the gap between consumer prices and economically efficient prices.”"


One must be careful parroting the numbers in this report.  Most economists do not agree with the author's use of a susidy to encompass all the environmental and socialogical issues presented in this article.  The author states that they are only estimates of the costs to mitigate the amount of pollutions and global warming related to their use. 

The direct subsidies (tax-breaks, price reductions, etc. that most economist use) for these fuels amounted to only $333 billion (0.4% of gdp) globally.  Most of the $5 trillion was the estimated cost of mitigating the warming, pollution, and health effects.  The author should change his terminology to reflect the more mainstream interpretation of a subsidy.  I wonder if he intentionally trying to make people that the government is actually paying them money, akin to wind and solar subsidies.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #185 on: August 10, 2017, 08:08:22 PM »
Daniel B.,

The government is not charging the fossil fuel industry the cost of the future clean up/impacts of the mess that their products will cause. A simple way would be through a carbon fee that represents these future costs. The lack of such a fee represents a massive subsidy. The amount is probably an underestimate given the conservativeness of the estimation models used.

I will not be drawn into using the highly-restrictive and ideologically-driven definition of English terms used by mainstream economics. It is a subsidy from the future to the present, paid by the general population of which the government is the representative.

Given that we have already blown well through the 450ppm CO2e limit set by the UN IPCC, such analyses are relatively meaningless. Given the probability of climate feedbacks, the precautionary principal should be the main method of analysis. Not "garbage in/garbage out" cost benefit analyses that assume linear climate responses and provide ridiculously low costs of carbon.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #186 on: August 10, 2017, 09:12:47 PM »
Most economists do not agree with the author's use of a susidy to encompass all the environmental and socialogical issues presented in this article.

In a litigious society the legal costs of pollution like GHG is perhaps most relevant.  See the linked NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW factsheet:

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/social_cost_of_greenhouse_gases_factsheet.pdf
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #187 on: August 11, 2017, 06:03:57 PM »
The linked article entitled "New Findings Show How Climate Change Is Influencing India’s Farmer Suicides", provides more background on the increase of climate related farmer suicides in India:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-india-farmer-suicides-21700

Extract: "A suicide epidemic among India’s farmers has shaken the country and contributed to a doubling of the nation’s suicide rate since 1980.

It’s a widespread and intensely personal issue, one that has been difficult to tease out the root source. Debt, mental health, lack of social services, weather vagaries and even media coverage have all been put forward as part of the problem. Now, recent research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that climate change could also be playing a role."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Coffee Drinker

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #188 on: August 12, 2017, 02:08:23 AM »
It seems the author looking for the famous 5 minute fame here by bringing climate change into the equation.

Nobody would have cared about this study if they investigated complex social issues etc.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #189 on: August 12, 2017, 03:22:23 AM »
The climate drives social issues.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #190 on: August 13, 2017, 12:27:30 AM »
The following summarizes selected considerations [including: (1) transient masking factors, (2) misinterpretations of paleo & observed climate sensitivities, (3) misinterpretations of the stability of the WAIS and (4) underestimates of the likeliness of continued high anthropogenic radiative forcing] as to why our climate change situation is more dire than the IPCC AR5 consensus (which represents scientism)  currently acknowledges:

1. Masking mechanisms which allow scientists to match model results to paleo & observed conditions while calibrating for relatively low climate response (while either ignoring many masking mechanisms [such as paleo-dust & paleo-SOA], or diminishing their effectiveness in the models); and which allow decision makers to procrastinate in exactly the timeframe when it was critical that they take immediate action. 

Hodzic, A., Kasibhatla, P. S., Jo, D. S., Cappa, C. D., Jimenez, J. L., Madronich, S., and Park, R. J.: Rethinking the global secondary organic aerosol (SOA) budget: stronger production, faster removal, shorter lifetime, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 7917-7941, doi:10.5194/acp-16-7917-2016, 2016.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/7917/2016/

W.R.T. GMSTA: Specific masking mechanisms include:

(a) Temporary (observed at least from roughly 1998 to 2013) atmospheric conditions in the Tropical Pacific that not only temporarily increased the frequency of lower level cloud cover with negative feedback, but also above average La Nina-like conditions and generally negative PDO values; which, accelerated the sequestration of heat in the ocean, which was partially release during the 2015-16 El Nino. 

(b) The temporary acceleration of anthropogenic aerosol emissions (largely associated with coal-fired power plants in both in China and elsewhere) that temporarily induced both negative forcing & negative feedback.

(c) A temporary acceleration of the absorption of carbon dioxide by land-based plants associate both with higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and with global warming.

i. Keenan et. al. (2016) "Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO₂ due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake", Nature Communication, doi:10.1038/ncomms13428.

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

Erik Hans Hoffmann, Andreas Tilgner, Roland Schrödner, Peter Bräuer, Ralf Wolke and Hartmut Herrmann (November 2016), "An advanced modeling study on the impacts and atmospheric implications of multiphase dimethyl sulfide chemistry", PNAS, vol. 113 no. 42,  11776–11781, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606320113

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11776

(d) Decadal scale thermal inertia fluctuations associated the ocean, atmosphere and cryosphere.
 
(f) A probable underestimation of both natural and anthropogenic negative aerosol forcing and feedback.

W.R.T. SLR: Specific masking consideration include:

(a) The tidal gauges around the world are located so as to be biased against the Greenland Ice Sheet, GIS, fingerprint contribution, likely underestimating SLR;

(b) In 2011 atypical atmospheric river event deposited large quantities of snow in Eastern Antarctica, thus underestimating SLR trends.

(c) Isostatic rebound associate with ice mass loss in the WAIS can mask the true ice mass loss measured by either gravity (GRACE) or ice surface elevation.

(d) If the WAIS is a major contributor to SLR this century, then due to the fingerprint effect this contribution could be increased by up to 40% in the NH.

W.R.T. Anthropogenic Bias: Other masking issues relate to the phrase "To err is human" in that AR5's projections contain so many caveats that it obfuscates the seriousness of our climate change challenge.  Specific anthropogenic masking factors include:

(a) The referenced standards for reporting observed GMST have been demonstrated to be biased on the low side.

(b) Anthropogenic forcing began earlier than assumed in AR5. 

(c) Common use of old values for GMSTA above pre-industrial.

(d) Common use radiative forcing scenarios that err too far on the side of least drama.

(e) Focus on linear Frequentist theory thereby underreporting the findings of chaos theory, of Bayesian analysis; of non-linear theory and of preliminary research that does yet meet the Frequentist confidence levels for evidence.

(f) Organized intimidation of climate scientists by denialists have contributed to ESLD reporting.

2. The TCR, ECS and ESS are all likely higher than consensus science is willing to currently acknowledge, due to a combination of:

(a) Masking factors biasing the recent observed climate change. 

(b) A misinterpretation of paleo-data with regard both the role of negative forcing from paleo dust and the role of Lorenz strange attractors in progressively ratcheting Earth Systems into higher states (such as an early albedo flip for the Arctic; and increased frequencies for strong El Nino events).

(c) The synergistic acceleration of non-liner positive feedback mechanisms (including Polar Amplification and permafrost degradation).

3. Instability of the WAIS could lead to a rapid acceleration of Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism within coming decades.  The likely earlier than expected collapse of key portions of the WAIS are due to reasons such as:

(a) The formation of the ozone hole over Antarctica accelerated the westerly winds over the Southern Ocean that together with the Coriolis effect drove warm circumpolar deep water, CDW, to the exposed ice of many key marine glaciers and associated ice shelves.

(b) The likelihood that GMSTA will approach (or exceed) 2.7C above pre-industrial conditions which per DeConto (2016) should trigger hydrofracturing and cliff failures of key WAIS marine glaciers.

(c) The rapid ocean heat uptake by the Southern Ocean's CDW (which is partially related to a climate change related increase in intense ENSO events).

4.  Anthropogenic radiative forcing would continue at higher than advisable levels, and for a longer than expected periods, due to such trends as:

(a) The transfer of industry from first world to third world countries (thus allowing high emissions to continue for some decades to come).

(b) An increase in fracking and farming led to an increase in methane emission rates.

(c) The domination of US policy by the GOP (soon including by Donald Trump) and their protection of the fossil fuel industry.

(d) The relatively rapid decline of the coal industry (particularly in China) that has accelerated aerosol forcing.

Thus we should not over rely upon the finding of AR5, as it errs on the side of least drama.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #191 on: August 14, 2017, 01:15:53 PM »
The climate drives society.

 Land features like rivers, mountains, lakes and plains exert an almost inescapable influence on the foundations of society. It is a trivial observation that human settlements start in highly favorable locations and spread from there. The possible layout and locations of countries, cities and even houses are determined by local geography. Geography is a component of the climate system.

Food, clothing, architecture, entertainment and even available professions, are determined by local climate components like temperature, humidity, sunlight hours and weather. Seasonal differences are a simple way to verify this. Societies with winter must evolve around surviving winters and societies with monsoons evolve to survive them and even take advantage of them.

Climate also rules the day to day by the subcomponent called weather. When the climate is a storm, well, you can't go out with certainty that you will return.  The weather determines what clothes to wear. It also determines what activities can be performed and the efficiency of such activities.

This is all obvious. So obvious that it becomes invisible in the day to day basis. We can easily come to believe that we are independent from the climate because we have been blessed with thousands of years of relative climate stability.  Everything is so well adapted to the local climate, that the man vs nature struggle is invisible. 
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #192 on: August 14, 2017, 08:03:01 PM »
Thus we should not over rely upon the finding of AR5, as it errs on the side of least drama.

"Side of least drama" = soft denial.

Another driver of continued emissions is the wilful ignorance and under-reporting of fugitive methane emissions by most governments, including my own Canadian government. Slashing methane (and nitrous oxide) emissions would help create a little breathing space for deep CO2 cuts. Of course, nothing at all is being done about this and natural gas is allowed to masquerade a a "clean" bridge fuel.

And thankyou AbruptSLR for continuing to provide such a treasure trove of academic papers and insights.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 08:33:13 PM by rboyd »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #193 on: August 16, 2017, 05:43:41 AM »
"Side of least drama" = soft denial.

rboyd,

Thanks for your many thoughtful comments; and I add two comments of my own on the topic of scientists erring on the side of least drama, ESLD equaling soft denial:

First, it seems to me that early climate scientists (of James Hansen's generation) were more forthcoming about the true nature of climate change.  Then once fossil fuel industrialists realized that facing this true nature of climate change might impact their marginal profit rate, they orchestrated an assault on science (including the use of hardcore denialists) that promoted scientist's ESLD behavior.

Second, it seems to me that true "climate porn" is not the dire scientific climate change projections; but rather the fossil fuel industrial's orchestrated denialist assault on climate science.

Best,
ASLR
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #194 on: August 18, 2017, 01:48:17 AM »
Here is a link to a Wired article where Bill Nyes associates climate change denial (made both hardcore and soft-core denial) to cognitive dissonance:

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/bill-nye-says-climate-change-deniers-bad-case-cognitive-dissonance/
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12960
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #195 on: August 20, 2017, 01:43:36 AM »
The linked article entitled: “Scientists, Stop Thinking Explaining Science Will Fix Things”, indicates that denialist have mounted a politically motivated campaign (think: Lamar Smith et. al.) to destabilize science.  Thus, scientists should not only explain climate science but should also learn how to use the arts and social sciences in order to appeal to public emotions (like gaining public trust) about climate change if they care to preserve their scientific authority:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/explaining_science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson