Is Climate Change Impacting Your Long Term Planning?

[lokisnow]

Yeah we bought the LEAF because it had the most doodads in the base model and just incredibly outperformed everything else in the price class in the driving experience. I still get a blast out of driving it. 

 

[lokisnow]

Holy shit, Tesla’s making a big announcement in a half hour. It is Either the unveiling of the model Y compact crossover or more likely is the standard range model 3 (the semi mythical $35,000 version) being manufactured and available for sale.

[lokisnow]

Standard Range Base model Tesla Model 3 is now on sale, $35,000, $36,200 after destination&doc fee, $32,450 minus the $3750 federal rebate, minus any state incentives, plus any applicable sales taxes.

I'm kind of pissed because if I had known they'd actually make it this early in 2019, I'd have maybe held off on buying the Clarity.

 

 

[mcbigski]

I'm all in on supporting fission and border control.  Americans are the most wasteful people in the world.  We should stop uncontrolled immigration for earths sake.

[Altherion]

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

If you think about it, that's actually highly debatable. There have always been *some* people who are very good at predicting what the world will look like (broadly speaking) in a few decades.

Sure, but this is mainly because there are enough predictions to cover most of the parameter space of the plausible so at least some of them are bound to be right -- and these will be remembered while the rest are forgotten unless they were important for other reasons. Also, broadly speaking is the right term and it's not very useful for making long-term plans: what will happen to a specific individual depends on the details.

8 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

If it was resolved, then it turns out we're actually quite good a predicting the future, and so we took steps to solve the problem. Like the only way this makes sense, is if the predictions are correct and so we can properly take steps to resolve the problem.

Not necessarily. It could be that the predictions were simply wrong (though I doubt that's the case here). It could also be that the predicted problem is solved for unrelated reasons (usually because somebody found a better way to do things). And yes, it could be deliberate actions to solve the problem -- or any combination of these possibilities.

13 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, things like math, the scientific method, and computers are of relatively recent vintage. You might have thought you made a point, but I don't think so.

This is a valid point, but I don't think it's as decisive as you make it out to be. It's certainly true that our understanding of math and science is greater than it has ever been and our capacity for sheer processing and collection of data is several orders of magnitude beyond what it was even a quarter century ago, but we're not yet at the level of Asimov's Foundation: we can't predict the exact times and places of economic recessions, wars, revolutions or the vast majority of other relatively sudden events and we can't even predict the effects and optimal levels of parameters in systems we ourselves created (e.g. the federal funds rate).

If you look at the predictions for global warming, they have a fairly wide range -- partly because it's a hard problem, but mostly because it depends on the dynamics of human societies. If the vast majority could really be convinced to act in WWII-mode for an extended period of time, I have no doubt at all we could take care of this in 5-10 years... but of course this is extremely unlikely (despite the hopes of certain politicians). Even without that though, there's a lot of factors that impact the outcome and I don't see us being able to make a detailed prediction right now.

13 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Explain how? We've known about this issue for at least about 4 decades now, and yet haven't been able to price carbon correctly to take into account the cost to future generations.

You can see part of it in this thread: we're now on our way in the move towards electric cars and while it would probably be slower (fewer subsidies), this would still be the case even if there was no global warming -- electric cars are simply better. This is already true today and that's before the various improvements that are coming in the next couple of years (cheaper batteries, faster charging, more places to charge, etc.). The same is arguably true of solar power, though we're not as far along as with the cars.

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Sure, but this is mainly because there are enough predictions to cover most of the parameter space of the plausible so at least some of them are bound to be right -- and these will be remembered while the rest are forgotten unless they were important for other reasons. Also, broadly speaking is the right term and it's not very useful for making long-term plans: what will happen to a specific individual depends on the details.

Maybe for some areas, but for climate change there are only a handful of predictions and all of them point in the same direction.

Quote

Not necessarily. It could be that the predictions were simply wrong (though I doubt that's the case here). It could also be that the predicted problem is solved for unrelated reasons (usually because somebody found a better way to do things). And yes, it could be deliberate actions to solve the problem -- or any combination of these possibilities. 

If the prediction is wrong there's nothing to resolve and if it was solved for unrelated reasons than the prediction was still right it was simply the solution that was incorrect (or not implemented fast enough or whatever) so I really don't know what you think your arguing here.

[Squab]

23 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Maybe for some areas, but for climate change there are only a handful of predictions and all of them point in the same direction.

Below is a handful of times we passed the point of no return this century which is blatantly false as we passed it last century: 

2017:

We're Now Even Closer to the Point of No Return

2016:

Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return'

2015:

Climate Change Goes Past Point Of No Return

2014:

Passing the “Point of No Return” on Climate Change

2013:

The Fast-Approaching ‘Point of No Return’ for Climate Change

2012:

Warming nears point of no return, scientists say

2011:

When do we hit the point of no return for climate change?

 

2010:

We are passing the point of no return on climate change

2009:

Climate Change: The Point of No Return

2008:

ARCTIC: POINT OF NO RETURN?

2007:

Beyond the Point of No Return: It's too late to stop climate change – so what do we do now?

2006:

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

2005:

Climate's Point of No Return

2004:

Is Greenland Ice Sheet passing "Point of No Return"?

2003:

Beyond these temperature thresholds, evidence suggests a 'point of no return',

[Luzifer's right hand]

3 hours ago, Squab said:

Below is a handful of times we passed the point of no return this century which is blatantly false as we passed it last century: 

2017:

We're Now Even Closer to the Point of No Return

2016:

Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return'

2015:

Climate Change Goes Past Point Of No Return

2014:

Passing the “Point of No Return” on Climate Change

2013:

The Fast-Approaching ‘Point of No Return’ for Climate Change

2012:

Warming nears point of no return, scientists say

2011:

When do we hit the point of no return for climate change?

 

2010:

We are passing the point of no return on climate change

2009:

Climate Change: The Point of No Return

2008:

ARCTIC: POINT OF NO RETURN?

2007:

Beyond the Point of No Return: It's too late to stop climate change – so what do we do now?

2006:

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

2005:

Climate's Point of No Return

2004:

Is Greenland Ice Sheet passing "Point of No Return"?

2003:

Beyond these temperature thresholds, evidence suggests a 'point of no return',

The lack of real action by the few goverments capable of long term planning(oligrachy run countries like china, russia and the USA) seems to support the idea that we are past that point of no return. 

[Isalie]

Its hilarious in a very sad way that a bunch of articles warning for an immediate danger are used to prove that there is no danger. (I get the point but it seems incredibly uninformed to think that because the world hasnt exploded since the first warning there is no danger)

[OldGimletEye]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Sure, but this is mainly because there are enough predictions to cover most of the parameter space of the plausible so at least some of them are bound to be right -- and these will be remembered while the rest are forgotten unless they were important for other reasons. Also, broadly speaking is the right term and it's not very useful for making long-term plans: what will happen to a specific individual depends on the details.

Not necessarily. It could be that the predictions were simply wrong (though I doubt that's the case here). It could also be that the predicted problem is solved for unrelated reasons (usually because somebody found a better way to do things). And yes, it could be deliberate actions to solve the problem -- or any combination of these possibilities.

This is a valid point, but I don't think it's as decisive as you make it out to be. It's certainly true that our understanding of math and science is greater than it has ever been and our capacity for sheer processing and collection of data is several orders of magnitude beyond what it was even a quarter century ago, but we're not yet at the level of Asimov's Foundation: we can't predict the exact times and places of economic recessions, wars, revolutions or the vast majority of other relatively sudden events and we can't even predict the effects and optimal levels of parameters in systems we ourselves created (e.g. the federal funds rate).

If you look at the predictions for global warming, they have a fairly wide range -- partly because it's a hard problem, but mostly because it depends on the dynamics of human societies. If the vast majority could really be convinced to act in WWII-mode for an extended period of time, I have no doubt at all we could take care of this in 5-10 years... but of course this is extremely unlikely (despite the hopes of certain politicians). Even without that though, there's a lot of factors that impact the outcome and I don't see us being able to make a detailed prediction right now.

Even if you think the latest IPCC report has only about a 50% probability of being true, it is still time to start panicking.

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

You can see part of it in this thread: we're now on our way in the move towards electric cars and while it would probably be slower (fewer subsidies), this would still be the case even if there was no global warming -- electric cars are simply better. This is already true today and that's before the various improvements that are coming in the next couple of years (cheaper batteries, faster charging, more places to charge, etc.). The same is arguably true of solar power, though we're not as far along as with the cars.

Well, according to the latest IPCC report, we don't have a lot time. And a few electric cars making their appearance isn't going to cut the mustard. We have huge amount of capital stock and durable goods that are going to need to be replaced.

Had we got started on this project much earlier this would have been much easier for everyone as it would made it easier to phase out capital stock and replace it with non-carbon based technology and given people more time to adjust.

The longer we wait, the bigger pain in the ass this is going to be for everyone. And people like you with their effing climate denial nonsense are not helping matters much.

[OldGimletEye]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

we can't even predict the effects and optimal levels of parameters in systems we ourselves created (e.g. the federal funds rate).

Explain this one further, as I'm thinking you probably have no clue to what you are talking about.

Also, I'll just note that while estimating the wicksellian rate of interest or R star is subject to uncertainty, it's just not the case of "anything goes" when estimating its value. Nobody in their right mind is going to say it's like 15% or something, unless I guess they are like you. Then, "golly it could be anything!"

[OldGimletEye]

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

we can't predict the exact times and places of economic recessions,

No we may not be able to predict precisely when they will occur. That said, we are not exactly flying blind in how to fight them or how to prevent them.

I'll put it this way to make this simple. Supposing the FED just jacked up the federal funds rate to about 6%. Does anybody in their right mind think that wouldn't cause a recession? Sure, we may not know when it will precisely occur, but we can pretty sure that it will occur, in a rather short time frame.

So your analogy here fails. So much for "golly, anything could happen!" (unless were talking about "identity politics" where you will take a strong stand about what is likely to happen).

[Rippounet]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

Sure, but this is mainly because there are enough predictions to cover most of the parameter space of the plausible so at least some of them are bound to be right -- and these will be remembered while the rest are forgotten unless they were important for other reasons.

That's not what happens though. Some people are better at predicting the future to begin with, and it's not exactly impossible to figure out who they are.

Oddly enough, I would say that you are wrong to state that the predictions we remember are the correct ones. There are actually quite a few counter-examples. For political reasons, it's often convenient to forget the people who got things right and pretend that it was all a surprise.

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

Also, broadly speaking is the right term and it's not very useful for making long-term plans: what will happen to a specific individual depends on the details.

"Not very useful" is misleading here. It depends what resources one has to begin with. Most people can't use predictions about the future simply because they can't do anything about it, not because they have no idea how it will affect them.

[TrueMetis]

On 2/28/2019 at 11:44 PM, Squab said:

Below is a handful of times we passed the point of no return this century which is blatantly false as we passed it last century:

Okay, so what's your point? Like all that does is support my point. There are only a handful of predictions, and they are all pointing in the same direction. They just range from "already fucked" to "almost fucked". Like just because they can't pinpoint the exact "we're fucked" moment doesn't mean that the predictions are wrong. This is ignoring someone warning of an impending avalanche because they cannot predict the precise moment the snow is going to come down. Do you even science bro? Uncertainty is a thing, but it doesn't mean a trend is wrong.

Also just FYI, some of those predictions have been, or will be, correct. I hope you realize when they talk about a point of no return they not talking about the moment everything goes to shit. They're not evening always talking about the moment we can no longer prevent everything from going to shit. They're talking about the moment it's no longer possible to prevent some of the various impacts of climate change, even if the negative impact won't happen for years. Of which we've already passed several. IE That point of return of that 2007 article is that we're past the point of being able to prevent " water shortages, crop failures, increasing damages from extreme weather events, collapsing infrastructures, and, potentially, breakdowns in the democratic process itself. "

Are you going to actually tell me with a straight face that we haven't been facing those things since 2007?

Like even that 1989 AP article doesn't seem to be wrong in it's prediction, since it wasn't saying that event predicted would happen in the next 10 years (something often true about points of no return, you can hit the point of no return, but not have the effect of passing that point happen for a while), but that we had at the point 10 years to stop them from eventually happening. Since Bangladesh has been seeing increased flooding that's disrupting farming as well as other issues, and the US Navy has been voicing increasing concerns about sea level rise since we're already seeing sea level rise impacting their readiness and costing money. Seems to me like they made a good prediction. Though I guess they've yet to see the Nile Delta prediction, it's just dealing with a whole set of other issues. Meaning it's simply fucked if the predicted flooding does happen.

The only prediction with a solid timeline was a temp rise of 1-7 degree's in the next 30 years. Not sure if that's Fahrenheit or Celsius if Celsius we're just under the low end of that estimate, if Fahrenheit we're within it. Without seeing the error bars, or the weighting since this is a news article not a study, and knowing that the ocean ended up being able to absorb more heat than they estimated in the late 80s early 90s, that's seem like a reasonably correct estimate to me.

[Rippounet]

This should have been posted here sooner to lighten up the mood...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSHvgaUWc8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD73a1trdJ0

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

So I'm far from someone who is against prepping in general. I like being self sufficient, like to be prepared and can think of any number of bad things that can happen to us at any given time. Reasons for prepping, in my mind, would include economic collapse, breakdown of the social order, a natural disaster that knocks out critical infrastructure for lengthy periods of time (such as a massive solar flare, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions etc), a mass terrorist attack that achieves the same effect, a pandemic, and a bunch of other catastrophic incidents.

But all of these would have a fairly rapid, catastrophic impact on our daily lives, and thus require a measure of preparation. By contrast, I just don't see climate change in the same category, at least not in our lifetimes. It is a gradual, incremental phenomenon, and pretty much your best strategy to mitigate its impact on your daily life is to acquire an economically valuable skill, get a good job and earn enough money to shield you from its low intensity, but gradually increasing impact.

Now, in a worst case scenario climate change may indirectly lead to some of the more catastrophic social and economic catastrophes I listed above (if say escalating food prices lead to social unrest or recessions, or climate induced migration leads to a breakdown in the social order), but then you would be better focused to prepare for those specific issues, rather than for climate change in general.

In the meantime, lets hope Tesla achieves its goals (Elon Musk predicted that electric vehicles would exceed 50% of new car sales within something like 10 years). Now, assume that's normal Elon time and that the reality will be more like 20 years. That's still a good trajectory. And if the costs of renewable energy and battery storage continue to decrease, all the better.

But in terms of prepping for a disaster, I don't think climate change really warrants being near the top of the list.

 

[TrueMetis]

Over a million hectares of my home province burned last year, and the last two years have record breaking burns, but sure let's pretend this shit is "low intensity" and "gradual".

[Altherion]

18 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Even if you think the latest IPCC report has only about a 50% probability of being true, it is still time to start panicking.

Well, according to the latest IPCC report, we don't have a lot time. And a few electric cars making their appearance isn't going to cut the mustard. We have huge amount of capital stock and durable goods that are going to need to be replaced.

Had we got started on this project much earlier this would have been much easier for everyone as it would made it easier to phase out capital stock and replace it with non-carbon based technology and given people more time to adjust.

The longer we wait, the bigger pain in the ass this is going to be for everyone. And people like you with their effing climate denial nonsense are not helping matters much.

I don't understand where you're seeing denial of global warming -- I'm about as confident in that as I am in established scientific results in physics. The thing I am not seeing is how exactly this constitutes a reason to panic for me personally (or my hypothetical descendants, assuming that they live in the same place). I can tell you that our politicians almost certainly don't believe this to be an existential threat because if they did, they'd be using all available means to avert it.

Consider this: for over half a century, we've had a way to generate colossal amounts of energy with practically no carbon released into the atmosphere and without any of the intermittency issues (and thus without the need for massive energy storage) that are inherent to solar and wind. If this was truly so urgent and so critical to the point where we need to reduce carbon consumption within a decade, I'd expect to see plans for using existing, proven technology to supply all our energy needs without burning fossil -- the reasons this hasn't been done yet are the not-in-my-backyard mentality and bureaucratic obstructionism. Thus far, I see nothing of the sort and instead the main proposals are to spend truly insane amounts of money on... well, I'm not actually sure what. And as a bonus, they're at the very least supported and at most crafted by the same environmentalists who are second only to the fossil fuel corporations themselves in being responsible for our continued dependence on fossil fuels for the past few decades.

[mcbigski]

Yeah I think the number of private jets at Davos last time was 10^4.  Even if it was in the high hundreds when the Al Gores of the world start acting like its a crisis instead of a shakedown opportunity....

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But in terms of prepping for a disaster, I don't think climate change really warrants being near the top of the list.

 

You're thinking the wrong way about it. And that really wasn't the topic anyway. 

No, you can't reasonably 'prep' for global warming. No go bag or 2 weeks of supplies is going to save you from repeated adverse climate events year over year. No, what you need to think about are things like location, governmental stability, access to somewhat sustainable, local resources, the types of climate events that can affect you, and your insurance plans.

If these things aren't on your mind you're probably just the kind of person who doesn't worry about anything and lets life punch you in the face. And hey, that's fine - some people are built to be the world's victims. They don't care that their house is on a floodplain, or that their metropolitan area is likely going to be hit by hurricane after hurricane and can reasonably expect their area to always be in a recession/disaster recovery. Or they live next to huge amounts of tinder and are just hoping they don't get set afire. 

The notion that climate change is gradual and incremental ignores the actual smaller-scale (like, say, state or city) effects. Yes, boiling water doesn't churn a ton at first, but if you look at one spot where cavitation is happening, that place is erupting in a crazy way. And as the water gets hotter, you get more cavitation sites, more eruptions, and more disaster. The overall temperature of that water and the overall calmness of that water isn't that big a deal, any more than the average temperature across the globe isn't that big a deal, but tell that to the fires in California or the hurricanes in Puerto Rico or Houston or North Carolina or the heat waves in Europe. 

But hey, enjoy your house in Miami.