Analogy about climate scenarios.
Posted by Fast-Armadillo1074@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 33 comments
Imagine that you were a parent with a child that lives in your house and does meth and heroin in the basement. His arms are covered in open sores from injecting drugs.
You have an idea. Instead of predicting the future, you simply think about what pathway your son is following. You conclude that out of the different possible scenarios, the one that previous behavior aligns with most closely is the meth and heroin scenario.
When you point this out to your son, he decides to sign a pledge. It goes into detail about how his drug use will reach net zero in several years. He will then become what he calls the opposite of a drug user; drug negative by going to college and getting straight As, and going to medical school, becoming a brain surgeon and making 500,000+ dollars a year.
After signing the pledge, your son tells you “don’t worry. I am now on the lower drug use and become drug negative by becoming a brain surgeon scenario (SSP2) based on the pledges and policies I signed.” You point out that his past behavior aligns almost exactly with the “meth and heroin scenario”, which you call SSP5, and that even the “go to rehab for the fifth time and quit drugs forever and become a manager at McDonald’s” scenario, SSP4, is optimistic compared to past behavior.
He points out, “Dad, you don’t understand. Based off the pledges I signed, your “meth and heroin” scenario is a fantasy scenario designed to frighten me. It is propaganda, not science. If I follow the policies we signed, I will soon be in medical school.”
Government officials and rich people go to a climate summits to party and sign a bunch of unrealistic goals about net zero carbon emissions in the future. Any prime minister can go to a climate summit and sign a paper that says “we will be carbon negative by 2045”. Any climate scientist can run a climate projection and say, “well, if all of these policies and pledges that the rich and powerful signed are actually somehow followed, then future warming will be similar to SSP2-4.5.” Many studies of have projected emissions and warming to see what will occur if all pledges and policies are followed. The studies are correct about what will occur if they are followed, but it’s important to understand the assumptions that are being made.
Schwalm et al. argues that RCP8.5 tracks cumulative emissions https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2007117117
“A widely used scenario and the most aggressive in assumed fossil fuel use, RCP8.5, by design has an additional 8.5 W/m2 radiative forcing by 2100. Recent comments in the scientific community (1, 2) as well as in magazine-style pieces and the gray literature argue that contemporary emissions forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA) make it increasingly unlikely that RCP8.5 describes a plausible future climate outcome. RCP8.5 is characterized as extreme, alarmist, and “misleading” (1), with some commentators going so far as to dismiss any study using RCP8.5. This line of argumentation is not only regrettable, it is skewed.”
“By this metric, among the RCP scenarios, RCP8.5 agrees most closely—within 1% for 2005 to 2020 (Fig. 1)—with total cumulative CO2 emissions (6). The next-closest scenario, RCP2.6, underestimates cumulative emissions by 7.4%. Therefore, not using RCP8.5 to describe the previous 15 y assumes a level of mitigation that did not occur, thereby skewing subsequent assessments by lessening the severity of warming and associated physical climate risk. It is significant here that the design choices for RCP8.5 were articulated ex ante and without any attempt to predict the future, yet this close agreement should not surprise.”
Schwalm et al. looks backward at what actually happened and asks which scenario measured reality matches. That’s a falsifiable, empirical claim. The answer is SSP5-8.5.
Bandits101@reddit
Scientists are lying. They know full well there is absolutely nothing that can stop the relentless outgassing of GHG’s form human activity and “natural” sauces that humans have caused.
The outgassing of GHG’s is orders of magnitude faster than at any time previously, when life had evolved and adapted. Ocean heating and acidification will eliminate sea life.
There is no safe limit for emissions that can be achieved that will even slightly retard the ice that is already melting. Sorry not sorry to all the dreamers that believed the “scientists” that told us that electric vehicles and solar panels save the day.
Increasing vehicle gas mileage doesn’t help the climate, it prolongs the use of fossil fuels, as does every other classification of “renewable” energy. Everything “climate action” is designed to assist the economy in one way or another.
People in power and influence are even stupider than us if they think wealth will enable them to survive long term. They’re in the same boat as us but they’re scrambling to the end that is sinking last.
Dentarthurdent73@reddit
Scientists did not tell us that EVs and solar panels would save the day. That was capitalists.
Bandits101@reddit
Capitalists that rely on you for the capital. If you’re looking to blame something, begin with yourself……glass houses and all that.
Dentarthurdent73@reddit
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I'm not the one throwing stones, you are.
You seem to be looking to blame scientists. I think you've got the wrong group of people, that's all.
Bandits101@reddit
Sorry if I came over like that. They have certainly no individual blame for global warming, except that like myself being included in the human race.
Fast-Armadillo1074@reddit (OP)
Scientists are not lying. People just misunderstand what they’re saying and twist it to fit their own narratives. The studies I’ve read are very honest.
Bandits101@reddit
They are NOT honest when they tell us that ceasing emissions stops or limits global warming. They can tell us what emissions have done, will do, and are doing but don’t say we can stop global warming by lowering emissions and using renewables and driving electric cars.
Fast-Armadillo1074@reddit (OP)
None of the papers I’ve read say that stopping emissions would stop warming. The feedback effects caused by previous emissions can take awhile to play out. However, adding more emissions will cause more warming on top of what the feedbacks cause, and it will cause its own feedbacks and increase the probability of the earth passing more climate tipping points.
Bandits101@reddit
Name a limit to the warming if emissions stop now. You can’t, you will guess but it will be wrong. The GHG’s present are enough, saying reducing emissions will limit the amount of warming is utter bullshit or at best gaslighting.
The blanket of GHG’s are warming the planet like never previously in time. The GHG’s are’t going anywhere, they are there until the natural carbon cycle removes them and that occurs over geological time.
Front_River_2367@reddit
"... 'natural' sauces that humans have caused."
I am very guilty of creating natural human sauces.
Bandits101@reddit
Yeah that’s dumb spelling. I think I’ve seen it misspelled so often that I’ve adopted it myself.
Jovan_Knight005@reddit
To be honest, i regret being born in the first place for many reasons.
Not being able to do anything aside from putting my family's garbage in appropriate recycling bins along with my mother, grandmother and grandfather is what is eating me up mentally in the last week.
Front_River_2367@reddit
If it makes you feel better the majority of those recyclables won't even be processed in the end anyway. The systems you were born in provide little more than an illusion of choice.
PrairieFire_withwind@reddit
And this is why Trump is our saviour. Only HE has the balls to attempt to close the straight of hormuz, to cut our emissions.
We should all worship at the feet of greatness.
.... In other news. Venus by Tues if you didn't already know.
Fast-Armadillo1074@reddit (OP)
That’s enough internet for today
PrairieFire_withwind@reddit
Lol... I said that to a maga the other day.
They were left gulping air. Twas the best day i have had in a long time. (A particlar maga that drives one of those too pretty to use trucks).
I prefaced it with the statement that obviously climate change is real.and trump knows it otherwise he would not be attacking the middle east. I got an argument there so finished up with the air gulper.
Like i said, twas a good day.
,.... In other news, pay attention to what the structure is designed to do. The strugure protects the hoarding of respurces at all costs. So replacing one person will not stop a structure designed to incentivize the concentration of power and resources.
KatDaduwu@reddit
the empirical point is solid: actual emissions have tracked closer to high-end scenarios than pledge-based ones. that's fair criticism of how policy promises get treated as fait accompli in models. but the analogy is doing a lot of work the data doesn't support. your son in the basement isn't also installing solar panels, scaling renewables to cheapest-energy status, and hitting EV tipping points simultaneously. the real picture is messier: we're on a worse trajectory than pledges suggest, but we're also building solutions faster than most models assumed we would.
i actually started documenting this gap on climateinvested.org because it's so important to see clearly. the pledges aren't enough, that's real. but at the same time, the stuff actually being built right now is moving faster than those same models predicted. both things are true and the doomerism framing misses the second part entirely.
the question isn't "are pledges enough?" (they're not). it's "what's actually happening on the ground?" and the answer is more complicated than both "we're doomed" and "net zero by 2050 solves it."
Fearless-Temporary29@reddit
Meth and Heroin users probably have lower carbon footprints than the rest of us fossil fuel junkies.
SplashTarget@reddit
Emission-based targets have clearly been ineffective in reducing emissions.
The only time emissions have gone down in this century is during the GFC, and COVID.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-coronavirus-impact-on-co2-emissions-six-times-larger-than-financial-crisis/
These were also times where the Global GDP went down.
Global GDP (an important economic indicator for pro-capitalist governments) moves in tandem with Global CO2 levels.
The pursuit of non-stop economic expansion by the top trillion dollar economies of the world is clearly the problem.
This goal requires non-stop use of fossil fuels (oil+coal+gas), which is an insane objective to have when
the resources of the world (while immense) are not infinite
people need the average surface temp. of the Earth to be between 13.9C to 15C in order for us to live, and burning more fuels moves you further outside of the upper limit, and is a recipe for preventable death +destruction
If we want to see lower CO2 levels, the economic output of the top trillion dollar economies of the world (where the greatest deal of emissions come from) will need to come down (ideally while maintaining acceptable living standards).
And it's possible to provide decent living standards for everyone, with just 30% of the global energy, and resource use from 2019
Abstract
The key question is going to be how can the GDP be brought down?
Some ways.
1)A miracle
2)Government action
-Pass a bunch of good policies/regulations that would result in a reduction in economic output, reduce income inequality, maintain decent living standards, and crack down on the extravagant lifestyles of the rich
-[For America] The richest states pass a bunch of good policies/regulations that reduces economic output, while maintaining decent living standards
2023-GDP & CO2 of 50 States+DC
3)Collective public action
-National strike by 3.5% of the population in the top trillion dollar economies of the world for an unspecified amount of time
-3.5% of the population in the top trillion dollar economies of the world just stays home for some unknown amount of time, and backs away from unnecessary spending
In 2019, 418 exajoules were consumed globally, it's possible (with efficient tech. use) to provide a decent living standard to all with 125 exajoules.
Note: An exajoule is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (One Quintillion Joules)
The problem is the economic system, the system has to be severely damaged to (hopefully) prevent the worst case scenario.
Bandits101@reddit
All emissions could cease this second, what do you think would change apart from less pollution. The GHG blanket still remains and increases due to natural outgassing, ice continues to melt, sea levels continue to rise, permafrost continues to thaw, oceans continue to warm and store excess heat.
I don’t care if you and everyone else on Earth dreams of a human race coming together and singing Kumbaya, it might help but I doubt it.
SplashTarget@reddit
The damage would be less bad.
Bandits101@reddit
Okay define “less bad”. What will warming be limited to. When will ice stop melting and permafrost thawing. When will GHG’s begin to dissipate, when will the oceans get back to normal.
SplashTarget@reddit
Well assuming the economy gets wrecked (in a controlled way due to human action), and stays roughly flat, we could (possibly) have less instances of the hottest years on record.
The weather (hopefully) won't be as crazy as it could be.
No specific idea, ideally less than BAU.
Well if (in addition to controlled economic damage) this low-tech carbon capture technique is used on various coastal areas, things can (hopefully) recover faster.
In the video they say that for every cubic yard of olivine used, 1 MtCO2 gets captured.
Right now they're testing the idea in NC, and if it totally viable, we can get 18 GtCO2 captured with 18k cubic yards of olivine.
That's the best case scenario.
Bandits101@reddit
In other words you don’t have a clue……”assuming”, “hopefully”, no specific idea”, “hopefully” “ideally”, “if”, “if”, “if”. “They say”, “testing the idea”. I don’t think living on hopes, dreams and fantasies will be helpful but for you perhaps they could.
I don’t have a clue either but I think I’m not deluding myself. There’s much more I don’t know than I do, but it’s not difficult to reason from facts instead of hope.
SplashTarget@reddit
No, I think it's entirely possible, and since it's possible to do, then it should be considered worth pursuing.
It's been empirically shown on two major occasions (GCF +COVID) that damage to the global economy reduces global CO2 levels, and those were involuntary reductions!
What were to happen if people got organized and reduced the economic output of the top economies of the world on purpose (while keeping decent living standards)?
(2023-GDP & CO2 of 50 States+DC)
If properly executed we'd see some serious reductions on the CO2 levels.
As for the carbon capture method, that too is based on a natural (but slow) process.
If that process could be sped up (without anything going wrong), we'd have a real chance of survival.
Bandits101@reddit
This is an argument I don’t want to win. You are most definitely entitled to your hopes and dreams, in fact I envy you, I have family and I want a future for them, I wish I didn’t know what I do. Good luck.
SplashTarget@reddit
I think this guy had the right idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsO_SlA7E8k
Willing_Cost2665@reddit
The analogy works because it isolates the core problem: the gap between stated intentions and observed behavior. Governments have been signing climate pledges for decades. The empirical track record not the modeled projections, the actual emissions data consistently aligns with the high-end scenarios. Schwalm's point is simple: if you want to know which scenario describes reality, look at what actually happened, not what was promised. The same logic applies to debt projections, trade policy, and financial regulation. Institutions are very good at describing optimistic futures. They are much less good at producing them.
Cultural-Answer-321@reddit
I said this years ago: pledges mean nothing.
Action is everything.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
I am also in the camp that sets this one aside when it comes to forecasting, though not because we pinky promise to follow policies.
RCP8.5 relies on continued significant emission growth as time goes on, reaching over 100 Gt/year of man-made emissions by the late 21st century. Looking at the fragility of our systems, upcoming material shortages and the already stressed biosphere I see no chance of pushing ourselves that far. This would mean essentially doubling civilization as it is today.
Natural carbon sources will help but unless all of our available research, data and modeling of these sources is completely wrong, they can't pick up the slack either.
That's not to say it isn't a good match for recent times, it certainly is, as the paper shows
Fast-Armadillo1074@reddit (OP)
Schwalm et al. does not claim to predict the future, it simply says that SSP5 is a useful scenario because it’s the one that most closely matches past observed emissions, and that as long as measured emissions continue to match SSP5 closely, it will continue to be a useful scenario to study.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
No disagreement there, I would have had the same view even without this study. But even moreso now
onionfunyunbunion@reddit
.