Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

consensus, peer reviewed science is very very very very far from claiming any disaster is in the making btw.

consensus peer reviewed science is that per Capita GDP (= life quality, everything we care about correlates a lot with it) will grow A LOT by 2100 even under 3 sigma scenarios.

the median expectation is something like 3x current per Capita GDP which becomes "only" x2.7 because of the "terrible" climate change and that's where you get claims that climate change will cost 10% of GDP.

doesn't mean they claim we will be materially worse than today lol. they mean we will be dramatically better off than today but not as much as we would be without the climate changing.

and I mean consensus is that would happen even if we literally stop caring completely about CO2 emissions. even by never solving that we will be dramatically better off in 2100.

Thank you for acknowledging that you don't know squat.

Your logic has a hole in it the size of the Grand Canyon.

First of all, you are wrong that the entire scientific community is united in believing that collapse is avoidable.

Second .... what happens to a scientist who claims that their own work has become pointless as a result of inevitable collapse ? How do they justify the continuity of their funding which puts food on their table and a roof over their heads ? You would need to assume that these scientists have the courage to sacrifice their own near term well being and survival in order to tell the public the truth.

The willingness to sacrifice oneself for a larger purpose is a very rare trait. Luigi Mangione had that trait. Many people would describe the possessors of that trait as being clinically insane.

The esteemed climate scientist James Hansen is someone who possesses some of that trait. But he's 85 years old. His life is near the end anyway. He doesn't have much to lose.

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

en

James Hansen - Wikipedia

In a 2007 paper, Hansen discussed the potential danger of "fast-feedback" effects causing ice sheet disintegration, based on paleoclimate data.[63] George Monbiot reports "The IPCC predicts that sea levels could rise by as much as 59 centimetres (1.94 ft) this century.[64] Hansen's paper argues that the slow melting of ice sheets the panel expects doesn't fit the data. The geological record suggests that ice at the poles does not melt in a gradual and linear fashion, but flips suddenly from one state to another.

In 2013, Hansen authored a paper called "Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide," in which he estimated climate sensitivity to be (3±1) °C based on Pleistocene paleoclimate data. The paper also concluded that burning all fossil fuels "would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans."

In 2023, Hansen led a team of 18 researchers to publish a paper titled "Global Warming in the Pipeline."[69] In it, Hansen et al. concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to an increase of 4.8 ±1.2 °C, significantly above earlier estimates.

In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening. He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.

In 2008 interviews Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming, in the same way that tobacco companies tried to hide the link between smoking and cancer.

Honors and awards
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[123] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[124] and was listed as one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive its Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."

In 2007, Hansen shared the US$1-million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[126] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[127]

Andrew Freedman wrote in The Washington Post that the Society had erred in giving Hansen the medal: "His body of work is not at issue... Rather, the problem arises due to the AMS' recognition of Hansen's public communication work on climate change."[128]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy Sophie's World,[129] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."

Foreign Policy named Hansen one of its 2012 FP Top 100 Global Thinkers "for sounding the alarm on climate change, early and often".[130]

In December 2012, Hansen received the Commonwealth Club of California's annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communications at a ceremony in San Francisco[131]

On November 7, 2013, Hansen received the Joseph Priestley Award at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania "...for his work advancing our understanding of climate change, including the early application of numerical models to better understand observed climate trends and to project humans' impact on climate, and for his leadership in promoting public understanding of climate and linking the knowledge to action on climate policy." He delivered a lecture, entitled, "White House Arrest and the Climate Crisis," later that same day at Anita Tuvin Schlechter Auditorium on the college's campus.[132]

James Hansen was co-winner with climatologist Syukuro Manabe of the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the Climate Change category in the ninth edition (2016) of the awards. The two laureates were separately responsible for constructing the first computational models with the power to simulate climate behavior. Decades ago, they correctly predicted how much Earth's temperature would rise due to increasing atmospheric CO2. The scores of models currently in use to chart climate evolution are heirs to those developed by Manabe and Hansen.[133]

In June 2018, Hansen was named joint winner, with Veerabhadran Ramanathan, of Taiwan's Tang Prize. Hansen's prize had a total value of NT$25 million.[134]

Mangione didn't improve lives with his acts (unless you are counting the lives of owners of private security firms who are making -pun intended- a killing these days)

Yeah but "we" tends to mean we who comprise 70-80% of global gdp. So while Africa's gdp per capita will triple by 2100, it's not exactly a rising tides raises all boats. Especially when Africa's population is expected to grow from 1.3 billion today to 4.2 billion by 2100. Meanwhile, China's on track to have their population cut in half by 2100. I suspect something like that is part of the plan that no one wants to talk about. But the details are in the reports. I think it was the UN's that had something like: 5 billion people + green tech gets us <2 degrees by 2100, whereas current population projections of 11.5 billion + green tech was 2.5 or something like that by 2100.

I've been telling you that. I don't have the expertise to perform a meta-analysis of the studies, which is why I also told you that there's nothing you're going to say in that regard that's going to change my view because that's not what my view is based on.

What is your view based upon ?

The childish belief that if we're ****ed, the government is going to tell us and incite a panic ?

P1: If total or widespread societal collapse were inevitable, the scientific community would not be urging large-scale action to prevent it.
P2: The scientific community is urging large-scale action to prevent collapse.
C: Therefore, total or widespread societal collapse is not considered inevitable by the scientific community.

That's a valid argument and about as simple as I can reduce my view to. And I tried to make that as easy as possible for you to attack by just removing/adding "not" where appropriate.

In your opinion, what would the scientific community do IF they believed collapse was inevitable ?

Would they come out and say to the public that the money which is being invested in their scientific work is a waste of time ? Would they come out and say ..... "please fire us" because we're worthless ?

You seem to have a very naive view of human beings. Suicide is a very rare thing. If you world view orbits around a view that scientists are going to commit suicide by declaring their work irrelevant ..... I don't know what to say. Were you born yesterday ? You sure act like it.

How many people do you know who have had nice comfortable jobs which are free from profit pressure and went to their bosses to declare themselves unnecessary. I'd wager the answer is ZERO.

Just like Bendall -- ring the alarm bell.

Can anyone just in a very quick nutshell let me know why was Texas such a disaster and so unprepared? There was no warning of this event beforehand and no way to sandbag or do something to mitigate its impact? I just find this absolutely bizarre that something like this with all the natural disasters the US faces can seemingly catch them off guard

I would say failure at the state level. Under Obama's term money was given to the state for emergency preparedness but that county had applied for those warning poles I read but was denied .

As well the flood occurring in the wee hours of the night has many asleep . Though I am not sure how you sleep through those emergency alerts on your phone .

The warnings came with normal timing , but the timing was terrible (deep in the night) so not everyone heeded them and they didn't evacuate.

Also being summer there are people camping in random remote areas and some of them have policies of "no cellphones" and stuff like that and that was deadly this time.

There's a ton of reasons. I grew up in that area. Flash floods happen a lot.

No possible way to sandbag. Rivers rise over 20' in these things.

There are creeks and rivers all over Texas that can flood if conditions are ripe. It would be hard to implement something that covers every possible place that can flood.

Granted, the river that the Mystic camp was on is prone and has flooded many times. There was one about 30 or so years ago that cause similar death counts.

In reality, they shouldn't build stuff where they built stuff but there's always a battle with that. People don't want to be told where to build.

The timing was horrible. It happened in the middle of the night.

And, people simply ignore warnings. Every year a bunch of people die in flooding because they try to drive across a low water crossing. Almost every time there are barriers in place ahead of time, but people drive around them.

Funny because that is what I’m hearing for a long time now.
But I figure if the collapse only aim at 20% of the world , then it isn’t enough I suppose ?
With dramatic future problems arising with massive amount of immigration forced to move in the northern atmosphere.
I’m glad I’ll be dead by then with all those societal issues it would bring.

How dumber can republicans gets ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjkgg0kk3lo

bbc

US lawmakers write to Canada to complain that its wildfire smoke is spoiling summer

And text they dont believe in climate changes lol…
I wonder if they had the same discourse with California fires earlier this year….

Most scientists are ringing the "alarm bell". But they have to hold out hope for the future in order to save their jobs in the present.

Bendell is relatively unique in claiming that collapse is inevitable. He's making his $$$ as a public speaker and an author while teaching permaculture in Bali.

Bendell carved out a short-term survival niche for himself with the Deep Adaptation paper. It resonated with a lot of people.

fyi - you still haven't named a single reputable climate scientist who isn't ringing the alarm bell.

For those interested in the theoretical connection between climate change and floods such as those in Texas.

1) Warmer air holds more moisture (Clausius Clapeyron). Each degree Celsius increases atmospheric water vapor holding potential by 7%.

2) Warmer water (this storm came in from the Guld of Mexico) has a greater degree of evaporation.

The combination of 1 and 2 makes for something akin to a vacuum cleaner. The air is sucking water out of the ground and bodies of water.

3) The jet stream is becoming weaker and prone to getting stuck in place, meaning that extreme weather in more likely to stall in a specific location. The reason that the jet stream is weakening is a smaller temperature gradient between polar regions and mid latitudes as a result of Arctic albedo loss.

So ... that's what happened here. A very wet air mass gets stuck in place and drops 15-20" of rain over the course of hours in a compact location. We saw this with Hurricane's Harvey in Texas and Helene last year in North Carolina.

The larger concern is the impact of hydrological extremes on agriculture. Evaporation can leave topsoil too dry to grow food and flooding can leave soil too wet to grow food. Multiple breadbasket failure is going to be the thing that nails human civilization. Most of our calories come from 4 crops which are grown in geographically concentrated areas of the globe.

https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/climate-experts-surveyed-views-future-warming

Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability

Climate experts surveyed for views on future warming

^Summary of this survey:
Published: 12 September 2024
Perceptions of carbon dioxide emission reductions and future warming among climate experts

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01661-8

Nature

Perceptions of carbon dioxide emission reductions and future warming among climate experts - Communications Earth & Environment

by John21 m

https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/climate-experts-surveyed-views-future-warming

Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability

Climate experts surveyed for views on future warming

^Summary of this survey:
Published: 12 September 2024
Perceptions of carbon dioxide emission reductions and future warming among climate experts

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01661-8

Nature

Perceptions of carbon dioxide emission reductions and future warming among climate experts - Communications Earth & Environment

The 211 survey respondents were generally pessimistic about the likelihood of reaching the Paris targets given current policies, with 86% estimating warming above 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. The median estimate was 2.7 degrees Celsius, which is expected to have catastrophic consequences for people and the planet.

Did you actually read the report ?

The "average" scientist surveyed expects CATASTROPHIC consequences.

Thank you for providing the evidence that you were wrong.

Not everyone has the courage to do that.

Really... you don't say.
Who would have thought that when water is heated it turns to vapor and when water is cooled its turns to ice.
Man, that a real mind blower.

And in the end, deranged water waster fanatics... its still water.

Which locations are immune ?

When you pay close attention, the habitable zones are shrinking everywhere.

Along the US Gulf Coast & East Coast up to NC, sea levels have risen ~ 6" over the last 15 years. S. Florida is going under. You can already see episodes of sunny day flooding at high tide. Salt water is pushing through the limestone and contaminating the fresh water acquifers that people depend upon.

Unprecedented wildfire is spreading in so many places ... California, Colorado, Oregon, Canada, Australia, Greece ..... etc, etc.

Temperatures in many heavily inhabited places like India are approaching wet bulb events beyond which humans can no longer cool themselves through perspiration.

The mountain glaciers which supply fresh water to over a billion people in Asia are melting faster and set to be mostly gone by the end of the century.

The water supply from the Colorado River system is dwindling as is the Ogallala Acquifer in the central US.

Increasingly concentrated rainfall events are expanding flood zones and wiping mountain towns off the map like they did in Asheville, NC as a result of Hurricane Helene. Last month a glacier collapsed in Switzerland and buried a village. Air quality in the midwest is getting hammered by Canadian wildfires.

When the overturning ocean circulation, huge swathes of the global south will undergo aridification. Northern European cities may see winter temperature drops over 10C.

Climate change is like a game of musical chairs that we played as kids. Each iteration, the number of places shrinks.

Where is everyone supposed to go ? Not everyone is a billionaire who can afford a survival bunker with 30 years of rations stashed away and a small army of navy seals to defend it.

My conclusion follows from that premise, too.