The claim being that as CO2 increases, it's warming capabilities diminish as a result using a kind of bottleneck effect I suppose. Is there a source that explains it? I searched across the web but was unable to find anything. I'm genuinely curious as I have never heard that theory before and would love to learn more
This exact question, "what do you think will happen in 2050" was asked a couple of years ago by my very no-nonsense Balkan mother who I will gladly credit as the reason I gained sense as it was her who taught me to be skeptical of the media (courtesy of having lived through the end of a country I suppose)
This question, to my anxious teenage brain was my first wake up call inside the deepest pit of climate anxiety, because I couldn't answer. I was told that (at the time) global warming was going to end humanity at the least and that it was somehow my fault just by existing as a human being.
Now I may be incorrect (in which case I'll gladly take the L as kids say) but I don't believe that the average layman climate alarmist whether activist or doomed can answer this question fully, after all we're just being told that everything will just get blanket worse. Especially today! Back when mother asked me this it was still global warming. One could answer "it'll just get warmer until x bad thing happens" but now? We're told it's going to get warmer but also colder, wetter but also drier (everything everywhere all at once you might say) in these conditions, getting a picture of the future (which I firmly believe humans need to have to survive) whether bad or good is impossible. Which I believe is (part of) the point.
If I'm wrong/have an idea what future the average climate alarmist could be imagining please do share so.
I wanna preface this by saying that I do love performance art and that I know quite a lot about the inner workings of the industry as a close family member works for it. Okay here it goes,
What started this was seeing a recent performance when a woman climbed in a bell to "sound the alarm" (I think it was a climate thing?) as uninspired as it is, watching the videos of the performances done by these artists what stood out to me was how needlessly dangerous they were, climbing upside down on a bell seemingly with little protection, using a kind of jet ski in a tiny room, trying to maneuver some kind of waste machine? All these have like a hundred ways to go horribly wrong. Yes they might have protections (which imo they didn't have enough of) things can still go horribly wrong.
I don't have an issue with the message itself don't get me wrong (although I do find the performance extremely uninspired) what worries me is that this is a growing trend. Where performances get more and more dangerous and shocking because thats what gets the most attention, and the industry of performance art is actively encouraging this harmful behavior, I seriously believe that at some point someone is going to get injured or even die because of extreme performances being so normalized.
To put it simply, regardless of how important the message may be, we shouldn't encourage performers to put themselves in harm's way for their performance. Because one day something's gonna go horribly wrong. Performance art can be beautiful, it can convey an important message, but the health and safety of the performers should be the number 1 priority.
Since the most panic prone models are apparently being removed for being too exaggerated (RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0) I've been wondering one thing as a layperson and for the life of me I can't find answers anywhere. How significant is this for all the predictions we get especially in coming years? I'm pretty sure these models were the playbook for all climate apocalypticism and policies so their removal must be a huge deal right? And how is this going to affect things going forward? I would greatly appreciate some clarification on the matter
I've been reading through IPPC reports because I want to look at data rather than journalists. I've mainly looked at the ones around 2021-2022 (simply based on being the first ones I found) so they still use RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 which as far as I understand will not (or are not) be/being used anymore (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this matter) and I've noticed something fairly interesting
First thing I want to acknowledge is that the reports were still quite alarmist however they were made with overly panic prone models from a few years ago so I won't hold them on that one. However what interested me was the way they talked about the potential consequences of these models, which was using far less alarmist language than what is being used in the media.
The only mention of the commonly nominated terms such as "climate disaster" "climate emergency" or the classic "existential threat" is when talking about how THE MEDIA discusses climate change. Not the IPPC themselves, but media.
I was also very surprised by another thing. These reports were fairly simple to find (I'm not sure why I found a 2021-2022 report first) yet people don't do it, because "experts say" is enough for them I suppose? And I won't lie this worries me extremely, we should (the general public) be encouraged to look at those reports instead of headlines yet we are not.
Another point is that while there were a lot of "high confidence" claims in those reports (based on now discarded models so I wonder how confident they are now) there was still a LOT of uncertainty surrounding it, more than I expected quite frankly given how certain they are being heralded as. Another odd thing was that from that report, the certainty INCREASED the further away the claims were (ie: at 1.5c there's a medium certainty that X will happen, however at 4c there's a high certainty that Y will happen" which I did find odd from a formatting perspective since in theory certainty decreases the further down the line you go. Then again, it can be explained by the models being overly prone to panic, still worth pointing out however.
However, here's the issue I take with what the IPPC says. If the IPPC themselves doesn't believe that the things discussed are as alarmist as the media presents (which from their own reports it seems that they don't) then they should condemn the media more, to condemn the panic around it if they themselves seemingly don't believe in it, and until they do I cannot support anything they claim. Because now you have an agenda. And while its unfortunately impossible to be completely divorced from bias as humans, science should be as divorced as possible and (I believe) the way to do that would be to reduce the rapport between science and journalist media.
For some background information I grew up on a farm and moved to the city for university. And the DISDAIN for farmers/people who live in rural areas in general is really starting to piss me off. We have to be very in tune with the weather in farming. Our livelihoods depend on it which means that we have to pay a lot more attention to weather long time (yes yes climate and weather aren't exactly the same thing. Well unless it's convenient apparently)
My point is that we are much more likely to notice long term trends since once again, our livelihoods depend on it. Now yes, we don't have all the answers and we aren't superhuman but it does come with an additional knowledge about long term trends. And I really dislike how little that perspective is considered because of... Idk arrogance?
Just look at how much farming gets dunked on for emissions and things of the sort. Farming, both animal and plant. Aka the thing that gives people FOOD. That should be the LAST thing we look at on that position (imo first should be the way we build) To me this is what cements the belief that the climate movement (which should be about science but has become about politics) is ignorant and elitist and best, straight up misanthropic at worst.
When a farmer talks about the benefits of warm climate (which we have observed in my area as well, most notably how our plants have less risk to freeze in spring) they're dismissed BUT if they talked about the negatives about warm climate (which there are, especially when it comes to working outside in heat. Which sucks) they'd be platformed by proxy.
There's this massive movement to present farmers or people in the trades are "uneducated conservatives" or just dumb in general. And having grown up in those circles, farmers, especially older ones, have been some of the most intelligent people I've ever met. People like this love to herald academic and put down workers (while claiming to care about them) which as someone who grew up in worker spaces and is making a living in academia that really shouldn't happen. I fact we should probably listen to workers MORE.
Discussions like the ones about climate cannot be done by scientists alone and certainly not by politicians and journalists (who are the ones with the most investment in it) but farmers, people in the global south who benefit greatly from things like fossil fuels or workers in general should have a much greater part in it (and NOT as a tragedy prop which is downright insulting)
Now I can hear some of the people I know who panic about it and like to pretend that they care about the so called worker class, who say that yes workers should be mentioned, and to them I say, yes. BUT THAT INCLUDES IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE INSTITUTIONS YOU HERALD. A lot of people who say that believe so only if said worker class agrees that climate change only harms their industry and they can use as a prop (which is what I mean by tragedy props) and if they denounce their industry as some kind of purity test.
Rant out.
Now just a preface that I spent my schooling in a place specialized for disabled/chronically ill/terminally ill children and teens so we had fewer material (no art class, no PE, history and geography were taught as one subject...) however it was still managed by the public school system so still relevant. Also I'm a late 2000s child who went to school throughout the 2010s mostly. Also you did have the option to take an ecology class in the highschool program (I didn't take it since it was optional so maybe some of the things I wasn't taught were taught there)
Here's what I was taught: of course the good ol' Inconvenient Truth documentary and all that came with it, experts say that X or Y city will be inhospitable in either 2030, 2050 or 2100. A very VERY basically idea of how the greenhouse effect worked, a once again extremely basic idea of how ocean currents and AMOC worked, quite a lot about earthquakes (with of course how tectonic plates moving is our fault somehow) how storms form (as well as how that's also our fault somehow) how good renewables are and that climate change is EXCLUSIVELY human made (yes that was a question on a test "is climate change natural, man made or both" I put both and apparently that was incorrect)
Here's what I wasn't taught: how much CO2 is in the atmosphere percentage wise (0.04%) past climate changes like the MVP, the LIA, the younger dryas, the RWP and things of the sort, how we are still technically in an ice age, MILANKOVIĆ CYCLES, how Earth's magnetic field influences it's climate, how much CO2 is too much CO2 and likewise how little is too little.
Now yes, one might say that considering we were being taught what we'd need in exams and nothing else my observations might be skewed, which I will acknowledge it probably is. However it was still managed by the public school system and most of our learning material was things taken (or dare I say cherry picked) from the public school curriculum.
Also I want to reiterate that it was made for children with illnesses that couldn't go to school normally and who already had their lives threatened by said illnesses. Which looking back is some sick stuff.
So my region is about to have a short spike in temperatures according to weather measures (two days of 23-24 at highest with cold nights of about 6-7c to balance it out, pretty great for crops) and people are already panicking about "how hot it is compared to last year" except... Last year it was 4c which is HIGHLY abnormally cold for the region, our plants froze and died at night, it was a disaster. Thankfully they bounced back or else we farmers would've been pretty screwed. Local news are blaming climate change (of course) as well as the dust season starting early which I personally believe to be the cause of this spike as every time one like it occurred it was dust season. One might also question if the weather measurers being so close to the local factory are being affected which I wouldn't be surprised if they are. Our crops are sure to appreciate the short boost as well as the dust at least.
EDIT: for those unaware dust season typically happens between May and July with multiple events, it's when dust from the Sahara is being carried by warm winds, an essential part of our ecosystem as the local plants love the boost in sediments
I'll use my own neighborhood as a case study (the simplest since I've been here for almost 20 years) I live in a region where extremely cold winters and sweltering hot summers are the norm. I live in a house that was specifically build for that climate since it has been standing there for hundreds of years. My house retains inside heat in during the winter and in the summer stops the outside heat from entering to the point where I don't need AC even if temperatures have jumped to 38c outside.
Meanwhile my neighbors, they live in the typical modern box house, and every year without fail they struggle especially in the summer heat. Since the concrete traps the heat in so much.
This to me shows a trend that has been going on for around 70 years (it could be longer). Where we stopped thinking of the local climate before choosing how to build. The same can be said for cities built on top of wetlands. Where the weight of the concrete causes floods. Something I also have an example of, the nearest city away from my home is prone to flooding. There were floods back in the 90s where basically everything flooded. But each time without fail the old Roman streets which are thousands of years old didn't flood at all. Even though they are right next to the river.
TLDR: make buildings region adapted agai
EDIT: this could apply as well to people who plant non native plants then scream "climate change!" When said plants don't make it