Extinction Rebellion

[8ball]

You patronising git. I have 'been taught" about this stuff - first time by scientists at the Hadley Centre best part of a decade ago. I can tell you that those that study this stuff are generally waaaaaay more worried by it and its implications than those that don't.

On the subject of “feedback loops”, it’s good to be careful about the distinction between what could be argued to be bugs in simulations, vs. real physical effects that become amplified by conditions passing certain thresholds.

As someone who has spent years working with simulations of a different kind, my main comment would be “careful, now”.

When biodiversity loss (personally, the scariest factor for me) becomes an input into complex models, we’re well into headfuck land.

Even working out ecological system patterns with very slight changes in conditions, then relating them back to reality, can get a bit crazy (was kind of in that field when I left academia).

tl;dr - I think working out how much trouble we’re in, and what kind, is near impossible, but we do seem to be quite far into the “bad times” zone.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We're the proverbial frog in the saucepan of water, slowly boiling to death. We don't know exactly what the temperature of the water is right now, but we know it's going up and that it's dangerously hot already. XR is an alarm call that we need to jump out right now. While I agree that overstating the science is foolish - it really doesn't need overstating to be alarming. But I also think it misses the point of XR a bit to choose what one vocal person associated with it is saying and point at that as what XR is. It surely doesn't work like that, and shouldn't work like that.

 

[kabbes]

I didn’t ask specifically about which is best (which can get skewed for an assortment of reasons), but why the IPCC should necessarily err on the side of the conservative.

Plenty of parties take your reasoning and use it to imply the opposite view.

Also, you dismiss comment on who is likely to be more reliable out of Hallam vs, say, the IPCC.

It’s true that there will be some parties that want to engender panic. But when the, say, UN have a report on climate change, you can bet your bottom dollar the base case there will be an understated version of a median that is less than the mean.

 

[redsquirrel]

As for your offensive reference to being handwavy - perhaps you would like to explain?

I take it this is your first coming across ferrel - dr sausages - the SCIENTIST!.

Ignore the berk mate, he's a joke in P&P a "evidence based politics" loon

 

[Pickman's model]

I take it this is your first coming across ferrel - dr sausages - the SCIENTIST!.

Ignore the berk mate, he's a joke in P&P a "evidence based politics" loon

He's a joke in every forum he graces with his presence

 

[Marty1]

I take it this is your first coming across ferrel - dr sausages - the SCIENTIST!.

Ignore the berk mate, he's a joke in P&P a "evidence based politics" loon

‘dr sausages’ ?

 

[Pickman's model]

We're the proverbial frog in the saucepan of water, slowly boiling to death. We don't know exactly what the temperature of the water is right now, but we know it's going up and that it's dangerously hot already. XR is an alarm call that we need to jump out right now. While I agree that overstating the science is foolish - it really doesn't need overstating to be alarming. But I also think it misses the point of XR a bit to choose what one vocal person associated with it is saying and point at that as what XR is. It surely doesn't work like that, and shouldn't work like that.

I thought the point of the frog thing was the frog doesn't notice it getting dangerously hot

 

[redcogs]

I take it this is your first coming across ferrel - dr sausages - the SCIENTIST!.

Ignore the berk mate, he's a joke in P&P a "evidence based politics" loon

Thanks redsquirrel.

 

[redsquirrel]

‘dr sausages’ ?

Nickname either DotCommunist or butchersapron came up with. Can't remember which, or why. But it's pretty good.

 

[Pickman's model]

‘dr sausages’ ?

Ferrelhadley has a conviction for adulterating sausages hence Dr Sausages

 

[redcogs]

Ferrelhadley has a conviction for adulterating sausages hence Dr Sausages

i'd love to learn more Pickman's model

 

[Pickman's model]

i'd love to learn more Pickman's model

A charge of preventing the lawful burial of a body was allowed to lie on the file, but it's a sorry tale from the days when fh was a menial butcher's boy who came in one day to find the butcher dead from a massive coronary behind the counter in the middle of making Cumberland sausages. I think I can leave the remainder of the story to your vivid imagination.

 

[redcogs]

The joy of the Urban way encapsulated in a single post

 

[8ball]

I thought the point of the frog thing was the frog doesn't notice it getting dangerously hot

I think lbj’s point is that this is indeed the case, and the frog needs a prod.

Obv we’re *all* the frog, so it kind of needs to prod itself, but y’know, analogies...

And jumping out isn’t possible, so the frog actually needs to turn the gas down somehow.

Which in a way, brings the analogy back on point, because a disinterested observer would probably conclude that this is quite a lot to ask from a frog.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think lbj’s point is that this is indeed the case, and the frog needs a prod.

no, he says 'we know [the temperature's] going up and that it's dangerously hot already': which the frog wouldn't - he's saying we're aware of our danger but we're still doing nothing about it. the frog of course unaware of the danger. perhaps if lbj wants to use analogies he might use ones which don't fall apart because they're being misused.

 

[8ball]

It’s true that there will be some parties that want to engender panic. But when the, say, UN have a report on climate change, you can bet your bottom dollar the base case there will be an understated version of a median that is less than the mean.

Fair enough, will hang onto my bottom dollar for now.
My experience with the nuances of publishing UN climatology summaries is a admittedly sparse.

 

[8ball]

no, he says 'we know [the temperature's] going up and that it's dangerously hot already': which the frog wouldn't - he's saying we're aware of our danger but we're still doing nothing about it. the frog of course unaware of the danger. perhaps if lbj wants to use analogies he might use ones which don't fall apart because they're being misused.

Analogies are tricky. Let’s say instead that pain receptors in the frog’s feet are quite concerned about the temperature of the bottom of the pan, but the frog’s brain has decided it’s probably just a little burniness from the old athlete’s foot infection... which was far worse 800,000 years ago so things are most likely also fine now.

You know, I might leave it to lbj to fix this one...

 

[Crispy]

Pedictions of complex systems can only be made with estimates of certainty. There's a whole section of each IPCC report dedicated to the exact meaning of words like "likely." The doomsday scenarios are not "likely" but they are in the realms of possible.

A 5% chance of utter calamity is still terrifying.

 

[Pickman's model]

You know, I might leave it to lbj to fix this one...

probably for the best

 

[kabbes]

Bear in mind that insurance companies have to hold enough money to be at lest 99.5% sure they are covered in all instances. Doesn’t seem much point, really, when the planet is seemingly happy to run a 5% chance of utter fucking catastrophe.

 

[Pickman's model]

Bear in mind that insurance companies have to hold enough money to be at lest 99.5% sure they are covered in all instances. Doesn’t seem much point, really, when the planet is seemingly happy to run a 5% chance of utter fucking catastrophe.

insurance companies are often themselves insured - What Is Reinsurance? | The Motley Fool

 

[8ball]

Pedictions of complex systems can only be made with estimates of certainty. There's a whole section of each IPCC report dedicated to the exact meaning of words like "likely." The doomsday scenarios are not "likely" but they are in the realms of possible.

A 5% chance of utter calamity is still terrifying.

It is not good. It can also be reframed as a “95% chance of no utter calamity”, which isn’t so helpful in a backdrop of shrill claims about other threats. Obv that other 95% involves trips to a lot of other “not fine” places.

Also, with complex systems, oversimplified results are problematic, especially where you have given probabilities of positive or negative feedbacks kicking in and people (esp the media) just want a headline item, leaving the scientists feeling like all the significant but nuanced points of their research have been left out of the picture*

Presenting this stuff is really hard, would be even with a much better media than we have, and politicians who were actually interested.

* - ok, maybe a tiny personal axe to grind there...

 

[8ball]

insurance companies are often themselves insured - What Is Reinsurance? | The Motley Fool

And when it all goes *properly* to shit the taxpayer picks up the tab anyway.

Or at least the pieces.

 

[ferrelhadley]

I take it this is your first coming across ferrel - dr sausages - the SCIENTIST!

A charge of preventing the lawful burial of a body was allowed to lie on the file, but it's a sorry tale from the days when fh was a menial butcher's boy who came in one day to find the butcher dead from a massive coronary behind the counter in the middle of making Cumberland sausages. I think I can leave the remainder of the story to your vivid imagination.

About the sum of your intellectual capabilities.

 

[ferrelhadley]

We're the proverbial frog in the saucepan of water, slowly boiling to death. We don't know exactly what the temperature of the water is right now

We are boiling to death are we.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
This is AR5 WG1, quote from this to justify that we are "boiling to death".
Statements that have no actual meaning, but infer near term catastrophe is one way of simply bullshitting for attention.

 

[maomao]

I take it this is your first coming across ferrel - dr sausages - the SCIENTIST!.

Ignore the berk mate, he's a joke in P&P a "evidence based politics" loon

His best one was accusing me of 'threatening murder' for having a little rant about landlords. I was chuckling for days. He's a fucking loon.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We are boiling to death are we.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
This is AR5 WG1, quote from this to justify that we are "boiling to death".
Statements that have no actual meaning, but infer near term catastrophe is one way of simply bullshitting for attention.

Mate, you link to ipcc reports without comment, as if the rest of us had never seen them or had not thought to look for them. That's part of your arrogance and patronising attitude, but it's also a really lazy and unhelpful way to post. I don't have the time at the moment to link properly to the variety of scenarios I mentioned (I'll come back to it another day if we're still on this topic), but for human life as we know it on the planet, it does mean death, yes, for huge numbers quite probably, if we don't do something about it pronto, and that's the main point of XR, a very timely point.

 

[8ball]

We are boiling to death are we.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
This is AR5 WG1, quote from this to justify that we are "boiling to death".
Statements that have no actual meaning, but infer near term catastrophe is one way of simply bullshitting for attention.

If you want a killer blow, you might want to point out that we're not frogs, and don't fit in saucepans.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you want a killer blow, you might want to point out that we're not frogs, and don't fit in saucepans.

I don't really want to labour that analogy any further, but the idiotic thing about it is that, because we're not frogs, a bunch of clever people have worked out the effect of what we're doing and suggested how to remedy the situation. We really don't have the frog's excuse.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you want a killer blow, you might want to point out that we're not frogs, and don't fit in saucepans.

you just don't have a pan large enough