Systemic Collapse: The Basics

[littlebabyjesus]

(Forgive me if I ignore your other personal insults. It's water off a duck's back by now)

You appear to be violently disagreeing with yourself, while violently agreeing with me. I'm at a loss as to your point.

We are in the process of irreversible climate change, but the extent of that climate change will depend not just on past emissions but future behaviour. Some climate change does not automatically equal the end of civilisation, but clearly the greater the change, the greater the problems. It's not an all or nothing situation.

 

[Falcon]

We are in the process of irreversible climate change, but the extent of that climate change will depend not just on past emissions but future behaviour.

Indeed. And we know enough about our future, from 10 year capital investment plans and persistence of capital metrics in coal fired power generation, to estimate near term emissions accurately enough to know there is no behaviour which will compensate for their trajectory.

Some climate change does not automatically equal the end of civilisation, but clearly the greater the change, the greater the problems. It's not an all or nothing situation.

If the climate were a linear systems, this would be an interesting and relevant comment. The climate is a non-linear system, specifically one possessed of positive feedback mechanisms. Beyond a threshold which is likely well below the one we will exceed on existing fossil fuel capital investment trajectories, there is no such thing as "some" climate change.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I
If the climate were a linear systems, this would be an interesting and relevant comment. The climate is a non-linear system, specifically one possessed of positive feedback mechanisms. Beyond a threshold which is likely well below the one we will exceed on existing capital investment trajectories, there is no such thing as "some" climate change.

Nobody properly understands the feedback mechanisms. There are indeed certain assumptions that lead to runaway climate change once it has started, but no serious climate change scientist would say that they understand this yet. They don't. Again, you imply certainty where there is none.

Again, this seems to be a pattern with your posts. You take all the worst-case scenarios and combine them to produce your firm predictions about the future.

You're kind of the opposite of climate-change deniers. The most dangerous kind of denier, imo, is not the fools who simply don't understand the science, but those that take every best-case scenario possible and spin them together to produce a picture of what they say will happen. You do the same but with all the worst-case scenarios.

 

[Crispy]

The climate is a non-linear system.

So how can you make such precise predictions!

 

[Falcon]

You're kind of the opposite of climate-change deniers. The most dangerous kind of denier, imo, is not the fools who simply don't understand the science, but those that take every best-case scenario possible and spin them together to produce a picture of what they say will happen. You do the same but with all the worst-case scenarios

So how can you make such precise predictions

Gentlemen. I hate to state the fucking obvious. This is what is called a "discussion forum". If it was a "certainty forum", then they would have called it that.

If your definition of "discussion" is the mental masturbation of bandying around comfortable, pre-agreed, formulaic platitudes, then by all means go ahead, and accept my apologies for any offence caused. But also forgive me if I don't join you.

On the other hand, if you feel like testing how your ideas stand up to scrutiny, then I will be happy to discuss them with you.

 

[Crispy]

I was testing *your* ideas, mr po faced
I humbly suggest that you mention uncertainty where you currently mention certainty about the extent, timing and nature of our doom.

 

[Falcon]

I was testing *your* ideas, mr po faced
I humbly suggest that you mention uncertainty where you currently mention certainty about the extent, timing and nature of our doom.

Well, that opens up a very interesting area, which is the treatment of catastrophic outcomes, the uncertainty of which cannot be estimated.

The Precautionary Principle is pretty clear and straightforward on this. In propositions involving the likelihood of catastrophic harm, the likelihood of which is uncertain, the proposer has the obligation to quantify the uncertainty. In situations where that uncertainty cannot be quantified, actions should be governed by the assumption that the outcome is likely until such times as it can be demonstrated otherwise. The mechanism by which such uncertainty is to be gauged is the scientific method (to which, interestingly, economics does not conform).

LBJ's rather cavalier "nobody understands the feedback mechanisms" is a classic demonstration of why that is directly applicable here. Since the outcome of the feedback mechanism being present is species extinction, a rational course of action might be to suspend the activity promoting it until such time as it *is* understood. Instead, the person contemplating such a course becomes "the worst kind of denier".

It is this deeply polarised, black-and-white, either-for-us-or-against-us nature of the debate which is our greatest problem, I suspect.

 

[elbows]

Says the man who goes out of his way to be a polarising force.

 

[Falcon]

Says the man who goes out of his way to be a polarising force.

I'll test your views. If I agree, I'll change mine - I'm becoming a Marxist, for God's sake. What I won't do is call you a fucking idiot for having them (unless I get very provoked, which is rarely).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

LBJ's rather cavalier "nobody understands the feedback mechanisms" is a classic demonstration of why that is directly applicable here. Since the outcome of the feedback mechanism being present is species extinction, a rational course of action might be to suspend the activity promoting it until such time as it *is* understood. Instead, the person contemplating such a course becomes "the worst kind of denier".

I called you for misrepresentation of something I know a bit about. I am not a climate change scientist, but in the past I have worked with climate change scientists from the Hadley Centre, helping them write a book about climate change, and they took me through what they did in quite a bit of detail. The Met Office have a very good section on this work on their website if you'd like to look at it.

I don't know much about Peak Oil, so I leave that to the likes of free spirit and elbows, but I do know enough to recognise a misrepresentation of the latest research into climate change. That's the thing about urban75 - it's very hard to bullshit on here. Someone will know enough to call you on it.

It's not a question of complacency, but the reality of current research is scary enough without the need to misrepresent it.

 

[Falcon]

I called you for misrepresentation of something I know a bit about.

What exactly is it you think you've called? Are you asserting that we know thermal runaway is *not* a significant risk, on current investment trajectories?

It's not a question of complacency, but the reality of current research is scary enough without the need to misrepresent it.

Define "scary enough". Not apparently enough for us to actually do anything meaningful with it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What exactly is it you think you've called?

The thing you always seem to do - a firm prediction of the future that omits the appropriate caveats.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Define "scary enough". Not apparently enough for us to actually do anything meaningful with it.

Speaking for myself, nowhere near enough is being done about it. We're not even in the right order of magnitude of things being done yet.

I'm no climate change denier, and I think we overconsumers in the West need to change our behaviour considerably in ways that politicians are not prepared to mandate yet. It's a disgrace, particularly as it is mostly places like Bangladesh that haven't contributed much to the mess who will be bearing the brunt of the earliest symptoms of climate change. Shameful. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with you when you present uncertain things as certain.

 

[Falcon]

The thing you always seem to do - a firm prediction of the future that omits the appropriate caveats.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with you, though, when you present uncertain things as certain.

I treat things that can kill me and are uncertain as if they were certain until their certainty can be established. If you can help me see the flaw in that approach, I'd be grateful.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I treat things that can kill me and are uncertain as if they were certain until their certainty can be established. If you can help me see the flaw in that approach, I'd be grateful.

Well, if you do that across a range of issues, it produces a picture of the future that, while possible, is made increasingly unlikely with every new uncertain factor that is added to it.

 

[elbows]

From the IMFs latest world economic outlook:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf

intensified concern about an oil supply shock related to the Islamic Republic of Iran could cause a spike in oil prices that depresses output in the euro area, amplifying adverse feedback loops between the household, sovereign, and banking sectors.
In the meantime, the oil price shock could also trigger a reassessment of the sustainability of credit booms and potential growth in emerging Asia, leading to hard landings in these economies. This could, in turn, prompt a collapse
in non-oil commodity prices that would hurt many emerging and developing economies, especially in Latin America and Africa. More generally, a concurrent rise in global risk aversion could lead to a sudden reversal of capital flows to emerging and developing economies.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Newest talking ringpiece in the Telegraph says ...

So it turns out that fracking for shale gas really is more effective at making the earth move than all the onanism of the enviros over windmills. We should thus get on with drilling and stop building the bird-choppers.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...op-building-bird-choppers-and-start-fracking/

 

[free spirit]

(Forgive me if I ignore your other personal insults. It's water off a duck's back by now)

You appear to be violently disagreeing with yourself, while violently agreeing with me. I'm at a loss as to your point.

you have a masters in the area, so should be able to understand my point, it's not that hard.

 

[Falcon]

you have a masters in the area, so should be able to understand my point, it's not that hard.

I said: "We are already on course for irreversible climate change in five years"
You said: "It's this sort of nonsense that I object to...We are already in the process of irreversible climate change now"

I *think* you were deploying the "lets act as if our 2 men have 6 men's worth of air" argument. If so - I disagree, because that would be deranged.

 

[free spirit]

you have a masters in the area, so should be able to understand my point, it's not that hard.

but, I'll try to explain in different words.

Essentially I think it boils down to you basing your climate change thinking on 450ppm being some magical boundary that
(a) we can't cross because it will lead to irreversible climate change, and

(b) we won't cross because it will lead to irreversible climate change,

(c) and therefore that 80% of proven fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground, and we must view this as being inevitable and prepare for an economy based on that loss of 80% of fossil fuel reserves.

In response I'd say.
(a) 450ppm was a convenient target to be set by IPPC in the 90's, as there was a realistic chance that we might meet it, and scientific consensus could be built around it being very likely to limit climate change to at or below 2 degrees. The reality is that its a continuum, and the difference in risk between 451 and 449ppm is negligble, the difference in risk between 450 and 500ppm is significant, even more significant would be the difference in risk between 450 and 550ppm, and we should obviously move as fast as is sensible to keep the greenhouse gas concentration as low as possible on that continuum of risk, but...

(b) There's absolutely no chance of us not crossing the 450ppm barrier, we would have had to take serious global action in the 90s for that ever to be a reality, and the USA scuppered all hope of that.

(c) This being the case, there is also absolutely no chance that we're going to leave anything like 80% of proven reserves in the ground. Doing so would utterly devastate the global economy not in a recession type way, or even in a depression type way, but in a way that would result in minimum hundreds of millions dying and billions being thrown into abject poverty. Even though the world's politicians are a stupid bunch, I somehow doubt they're going to destroy the entire economy in some last ditch effort to keep us under a fairly arbitrary target figure given that they've mostly spent the last 25 years at best paying lip service to the subject.

(d) This being the case, continuing to state with certainty that 80% of fossil fuel reserves will be left in the ground, and that the world's energy supply is therefore going to be screwed and we'll not have the energy to develop renewables to the point where they can take over etc etc is not a position that can really be supported by the evidence. Continuing to assert the opposite serves no useful purpose, and makes you come across like like some sort of climate change conspiraloon rather than someone giving a well thought through analysis of the situation.

 

[free spirit]

I said: "We are already on course for irreversible climate change in five years"

do you honestly not see the problem associated with making statements such as this with definitive timescales attached?

 

[Nylock]

Newest talking ringpiece in the Telegraph says ...



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...op-building-bird-choppers-and-start-fracking/

Why do these areholes always look the same? The comments section is full of humanity's 'finest' as well....

 

[SpineyNorman]

Prompted by falcon recommending Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's work I just found this on youtube. Started watching it and it looks pretty good, though I'm not clued up enough about the environment to know whether he's got that part right.

 

[teqniq]

Newest talking ringpiece in the Telegraph says ...



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...op-building-bird-choppers-and-start-fracking/

Where do they get these people from? I'd love to think it was an alternative reality but I'd only be deluding myself.

 

[free spirit]

What exactly is it you think you've called? Are you asserting that we know thermal runaway is *not* a significant risk, on current investment trajectories?

That's not what you've been saying, or what anyone else has been disagreeing with you about.

What you're being called on is your use of specific dates, specific levels of CO2 concentrations and the implication that beyond these points we're all definitely fucked or something.

LBJ didn't quite put it across right. It's not that nobody understands the feedback loops, it's that nobody really has much of a clue about the point at which they're going to kick in, or how rapid their impact will be.

It's true that at a 2 degree rise it's generally accepted that it's unlikely that the feedback mechanisms will kick in to much of a degree, and the further beyond that we go the more likely it is that these various feedback mechanisms will kick in and potentially even take over from anthropogenic sources as being the primary driver (runaway climate change).

But stating specific dates and figures beyond which something really bad will happen, is a major misrepresentation of the uncertainty in the science. That's what I've been attacking you for, and I'm pretty sure it's also what LBJ is saying.., it's hyperbole, not an accurate representation of the science.

 

[free spirit]

I *think* you were deploying the "lets act as if our 2 men have 6 men's worth of air" argument. If so - I disagree, because that would be deranged.

But imagine ten men on a submarine with only enough air for two. Imagine you arguing that they've "compromised" and have decided that there is enough for six of them.

no, I'm deploying the argument that we don't actually have that much idea how much air we have left, or how long we might need it to last, so lets take serious efforts to conserve that air and at the same time do all we can to fix the submarine so we're no longer trapped, but let's not kill 8 out of the 10 people on board, particularly when 10 people working at solving the problem will give a much better chance of us all surviving.

From that analogy you'd presumably have, killed 8 people to save air based on some dubious back of the envelope calculations, and now have 1 gibbering wreck of a crew mate to assist you in fixing the submarine by yourselves, and 8 rapidly decaying bodies to create an added health hazard for you to contend with (or are you viewing them as a food source?).


Personally I'm preferring my way of thinking on this. If you're preferring the 2nd scenario as you seem to indicate, then I'd suggest that you have some way to go on your journey towards socialism.

 

[Falcon]

What you're being called on is your use of specific dates, specific levels of CO2 concentrations and the implication that beyond these points we're all definitely fucked or something.

No. I refer you to my comments on the Precautionary Principle. Stating that there are specific limits, and acting as if those limits are specific until other information presents itself, are different propositions and you have confused them in your argument.

There are interesting points to be made about its application (for example, there are arguments that the application of the Precautionary Principle itself violates the Precautionary Principle). But this isn't one of them.

 

[Falcon]

Prompted by falcon recommending Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's work I just found this on youtube. Started watching it and it looks pretty good, though I'm not clued up enough about the environment to know whether he's got that part right.

Great link, SpineyNorman - thank you. This is worth watching in its entirety, despite its rather (to my mind) hokey start - it is trying to make something which is simultaneously the most important and the most inaccessible issue of our time accessible to the widest possible audience which, in aggregate, has a very short attention span for unpalatable news. So it has, of necessity, to be a little sensationalist. I think it gets it right.

"When you believe that the current system is the best we have, and when you believe that the war on terror is just a war against crazy barbarians that hate us because of our freedoms and our way of life, you are out of touch with reality, and you don't really get the systemic cause of what is going on. So when policy makers see things like climate change, peak oil, the environmental crisis, or the fact that we are reaching the limits of food production, they try to deal with them in isolation instead of recognising that these crises are fundamentals of a failing global system. Because of this ideology, because of these subliminal ideas, we are straightjacketed...We need to go back to each of these crises, understand how they work, and understand how they are fundamentally interconnected."

 

[SpineyNorman]

From that analogy you'd presumably have, killed 8 people to save air based on some dubious back of the envelope calculations, and now have 1 gibbering wreck of a crew mate to assist you in fixing the submarine by yourselves, and 8 rapidly decaying bodies to create an added health hazard for you to contend with (or are you viewing them as a food source?).

Reminds me of the "lifeboat ethics" piece someone posted on the peak oil thread. Scary shit.

(Not suggesting Falcon actually subscribes to this view, I think - and hope - he doesn't)

 

[Dr Jon]

Great link, SpineyNorman - thank you. This is worth watching in its entirety, despite its rather (to my mind) hokey start - it is trying to make something which is simultaneously the most important and the most inaccessible issue of our time accessible to the widest possible audience which, in aggregate, has a very short attention span for unpalatable news. So it has, of necessity, to be a little sensationalist. I think it gets it right.

Also see: The Cutting Edge