Governments are failing to understand global catastrophic risks (2019)
cam.ac.uk
cam.ac.uk
I am unsure if most people are aware of this, but most of the scientists whose work is consumed by the IPCC + those working on the models published by the IPCC know that the "consensus" view is wrong. Except, it's wrong in the opposite direction to what certain people want it to be.
The reality is far worse than what the models suggest. The models still don't include the loss of permafrost - what's worse is that they don't model the non-linearity of permafrost loss, methane emission, that then sparks more warming and more permafrost loss etc, https://www.woodwellclimate.org/review-of-permafrost-science... nor do they include effects of how the climate would change of ocean conveyor currents shut down (AMOC in particular is of significant interest, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/12/concern-grows-over... ). They also don't model the melting and release of clathrates from the ocean, or the effects of ocean acidification, and several other non-linear processes.
Another significant issue that they haven't adequately addressed is the loss of ice around the arctic, particularly the recent failure in the formation of sea ice in the Laptev sea. It's the most damning graph that I'm aware of, https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1431688657245589505 - the main ice feeding region for the arctic remains unfrozen for longer, and longer, and takes longer to refreeze. Leading to greater sunlight absorption that further increases the temperature of the waters due to the decrease in albedo, https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-3-2/ - but the feedback loop itself isn't fully modeled in the reports that the IPCC publishes. I might be wrong on this count, but it is what I recall from my prior reading, https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/295.htm
I had a very polite, but heated argument with one of the scientists involved and he told me that they aren't going to include that, because if they do, the numbers will look much worse and they'll be dismissed as apocalyptic loons.
Which brings us to the point that Dr Feynman made in his remarks about the Challenger disaster,
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
For our civilization to be successful, we must face this this reality. We must realize that nature cannot be fooled. Nature is relentless. It does not care about our petty human needs to be respectable. It simply is.
This is why I have no hope. The powers-that-be will never acknowledge this. It’s already too late.
Another respondent mentions the structural group dynamics in regard to the HBO Chernobyl dramatisation (which I have on good authority is a realistic take on Soviet era dynamics).
Feynman was always pointing out the gap between the world as it is and the world as we wish it to be to suit our expedient economic and political ends. His magic-show with the O-rings at the Challenger hearing is a masterpiece of calm iconoclasm of smug idiocracy.
But there aren't enough Feynmans, so reality is not taking precedence over public relations, especially in tech. There are plenty of people right here who are happily, silently going along with creating our societal downfall through reckless projects like a "fully cashless economy" and an unnecessary, unchecked, and largely unwanted "Internet of Things".
But you cannot convince people whose salary depends on them not being convinced.
[1] https://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/why-we-cant-teach-cyber...
You either are getting your shit from Reddit or worse.
I highly question the veracity of your comment. It looks like copy pasta from one of climate subreddits.
> You either are getting your shit from Reddit or worse.
I am not going to state my bonafides here, but if you followed the citations, you would know that it's true. These tipping points are mentioned in the reports, but they are not included in the models. To quote the Woodwell Climate Research Center,
> This is done using a simplified, preliminary estimate that both assumes a linear relationship between warming and permafrost emissions and excludes a number of critically important thaw processes—notably abrupt thaw (thaw-induced ground collapse that exposes deep permafrost) and fire-permafrost interactions. As a result, the projection (3–41 GtCO₂ per 1°C of warming by 2100) is underestimating permafrost carbon emissions potential in the budgets.
Or straight from the horse's mouth,
> Scientific advisers must resist pressures that undermine the integrity of climate science. Instead of spreading false optimism, they must stand firm and defend their intellectual independence, findings and recommendations — no matter how politically unpalatable2.
and
> Climate researchers who advise policy-makers feel that they have two options: be pragmatic or be ignored. They either distance themselves from the policy process by declaring that it is no longer possible to stay within a 2 °C-compatible carbon budget, or they suggest practical ways to dodge carbon-budget constraints3.
> Many advisers are choosing pragmatism. This can lead to paradoxical positions, as exemplified by shifting assumptions in climate economics over the past few years.
> Each year, mitigation scenarios that explore policy options for transforming the global economy are more optimistic4 — and less plausible. Advisers once assumed that the global emissions peak would have to be reached before 2020 and that annual emissions-reduction rates of more than 3% were not feasible. Those assumptions keep changing.
> For example, the fourth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, stated that emissions must peak by 2015 to stay within 2 °C of warming; yet the fifth IPCC report, released last year, refers to 2030 emissions levels higher than today's that are still compatible with this limit, albeit with annual emissions-reduction rates of 6%. The annual Emissions Gap Report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had an original deadline of 2020 for its analysis of how to fill the gap between global emissions levels compatible with a 2 °C target and national pledges; the 2014 edition extended it to 2030.
> In both cases, climate economists got around past 'make-or-break' points for the 2 °C target by adding 'negative emissions' — the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere during the second half of this century. Most models assume that this can be achieved using a combination of approaches known as BECCS: bioenergy (which would require 500 million hectares of land — 1.5 times the size of India)4 and carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology.
and most damning of all,
> “ Policy-makers view the IPCC reports mainly as a source of quotes with which to legitimize their preferences.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/521027a
We are already far beyond the worst case scenario as shown by the initial reports. The models that power the graphs exclude many known feedback loops and include these types of hacks to achieve what people want.