Rust Never Sleeps / George Morrison🇨🇦

A Psychological and Linguistic Analysis of “The 2024 State of the Climate Report: Perilous Times on Planet Earth” Abstract. A traditional goal of science and environmental communication, including climate communication, has been to encourage disinterested or uninformed

Scientific Warnings Don't Work:
Climate Messaging Needs a Rethink @aibsbiology.bsky.social academic.oup.com/bioscience/a...

adjusted (accounting) for the reflected visible light (~77 and 22.9 in your figure, iirc)

(because concentrations are increasing faster, aka "atmospheric fraction" is (as modeled/projected and observed) slightly increasing as cumulative emissions increase

now I think everything is also both agreeing again if your SYR Table 1 is the correct labeling:... temp increases are remaining roughly linear with **anthropogenic cumulative CO₂ *emissions*** but *falling* *relative* to concentrations (so roughly logarithmic)...

I may not be explaining well...

tldr;:

if temp ∝ logarithmic with concentrations...

*and* temp ∝ linear with anthropogenic cumulative emissions...

*then* atmospheric concentrations must be 1/∝ opposite somehow to cumulative anthropogenic emissions

as in, future *concentrations* are expected to increase faster (as a function of cumulative anthropogenic CO₂ emissions) than historical... so climate cycle feedbacks expected to somewhat overcome the forcing... included in the proportionality paper I linked above, iirc🤷

although!

I will just also *add* that the *future* temperature effect of *future* (anthropogenic!) CO₂ emissions is expected to *fall* in order to stay in accordance with the expectation of logarithmic relation to *concentrations* *because* future *sinks* are expected to decline! *All consistent!*

'kay... agree... still, not the way the figure itself read🤷

like, I could be wrong in the paper, but pretty sure I am reading the figure correctly?🤷

forward cumulative emissions

[part of the reason I get on about this distinction is because (net) emissions can remain positive (and, hence, cumulative (net) emissions also be increasing) but concentrations *decreasing* *AND* global surface temps *INCREASING*... no contradictions there! but decidedly non-intuitive!!!]

👆"also shows estimates of the associated atmospheric CO2 concentrations"

🤷🤔

figure/panel reads "Ellipses show cumulative emissions and warming in 2100 for different categories of future emissions scenario."

pretty sure in units of (cumulative) GtCO₂ emissions, not atmospheric concentrations?

🤔🤷

although that was sort of bleeding edge (at the time!)...

let me think on it a bit, but maybe the others can chime in

[and, re: my third comment earlier - whether this example "fits" in the context of slides 1-16... maybe it fits *better* bringing this distinction in (or for a subsequent talk!👍)

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions - Nature Climate sensitivity models may inaccurately characterize the full Earth system response, as they ignore changes in the carbon cycle, aerosols, land use and land cover. A combination of a simplified cl...

off the top of my head, this...

www.nature.com/articles/nat...

edit add:

now just looking back at slides 1-16, I am not really sure that global surface temps (unspecified time response) and atmospheric emissivity vs atmospheric CO₂ concentrations is a great teaching example🤷

not sure where the red line is "from"? is it just a ~fit through ~the two y-axis points?🤷

if so, pretty sure linearity doesn't actually hold for indicated 200-500ppm concentration range regardless (for ECS at least?)? (and not sure students are aware of transient vs equilibrium temp distinction?)

slide 22

yes, agree... @kenrice.bsky.social, @sarava.net?

the ~linear relationship is btwn (transient!) global surface temps and *cumulative* CO₂ *emissions*

relation btwn *equilibrium* temps (let alone transient, as point in time indicators on y-axis suggest) and CO₂ concentrations is *logarithmic*

🤷

Perhaps if you squint you can see a wee gap between "it's counterproductive to bully someone who is your ally 98% of the time into silence in public" and "you must agree with everything he says."

I is telling that none of the angry online lefties in question can paraphrase Ezra without a comical level of caricature and misreading. "Ezra is like Manchin" just requires a heroic level of determined ignorance.

That's if you define "young left" by the loudest voices. I don't think you'd find that in a broad poll of young Democrats.

There's just a collection of online lefties deranged by social media, in love with manichean distinctions, seeking to add to their Enemies List.

Except these aren't generic "gen z students" and I bet if you did a general poll of gen z students, the vast majority would either like Ezra or not have any idea who he is. This is a very narrow, self-appointed group of radicals that don't speak for anyone.

I suppose it's neither here nor there, and it's probably pointless and counterproductive to get involved, but nonetheless, I feel compelled to say: shouting down Ezra Klein at a public event is an absolutely childish, pathetic, self-indulgent way to cosplay activism. An absolute gift to fascists.

... accounting, say, that "losses" have an offsetting "gain" (spending on damages recovery, or mitigation projects, whatever) when economists describe ΔGDP vs some baseline!😲

not helpful!

can you describe the differences in metrics?🤷

could be very insightful if you articulate your understanding!

... there's a (quite surprising to me! from *you*!) conflation being made here! like, say, *describing* things relative to a *thing* (e.g., "this pebble is 0.000001% of this mountain!", vs. "this pebble is HUGE vs the change in this mountain this year!", etc.)

or, the *NOT MISUNDERSTOOD*...

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social Like if you "spend" $1tn on building wind farms it doesn't mean you lit $1tn on fire, it means many local people just got a well-paid job and spent those incomes in their communities. They also didn't note the time period under discussion meant even the high estimate was like ~3% of the UK economy. 02 1 Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.s... 54m And they never run the headline "oh, if we didn't build those windfarms, it would cost >4 tn building new coal plants". I am getting increasingly infuriated at this general notion that everything is free, except evil climate policy, that is costly and the cause of the world's ills. 1 22 06

Glen, again, *with respect*, if you are getting "increasingly infuriated* about random *big numbers* as tossed about above👆👇, without seemingly understanding how or which ones are ultimately describing the commonly understood *cost* to the economy (e.g., foregone future income or production, etc..)

simply "anti-emissions" or "anti-mitigation" policy or suggesting that aggressively reducing emissions can only "screw up your economy" is a disservice to and misrepresentation of the research.

Disappointing!

8/8

... honest about these trade-offs to build resilient pathways.

Burgess et al. view mitigation and adaptation as complementary: one stabilizes the long-term, while the other protects lives today. Seemingly characterizing their call for prudent, pro-development policy as...

7/8
​

... can increase the risk of hunger by 80–280 million—an impact that can exceed direct climate damage in the near term.

Burgess points to the 2021 Sri Lankan fertilizer ban as a real-world example of well-intentioned "green" policy causing an economic and humanitarian collapse. We have to be..

6/8

If a policy halts that growth, it removes their primary defense against climate impacts.

This isn't a fringe view. E.g.: The IPCC AR6 WGII (Ch 5), led by Toshihiro Hasegawa, warns that poorly considered mitigation (like uniform global carbon taxes in their example)...

5/8

"... to fall behind in the global clean tech race, not to mention leaving near-term economic benefits on the table."

The "screw up" quote is a *warning* about uncoordinated, costly policies that ignore a vital reality: for the world's poor, econ development is the most powerful form of adaptation.