I am trying to work out, in an open way before everyone, what is happening on Earth in terms of ecosystem collapse, species loss, habitat destruction, pollution, and abrupt climate change.
I think anyone can grasp the science, however some aspects I find genuinely difficult.
1/
I think anyone can grasp the science, however some aspects I find genuinely difficult.
1/
I'm writing this thread after a scientist implied my tweets were very misleading and that I was being deliberately dishonest, with 2 or 3 high profile scientists appearing to agree wholeheartedly. I was irritated at how unfair this was, though maybe not terribly surprised.
2/
2/
(Having tweeted an article by an established journalist/author which expressed the extraordinary opinion that on reaching 2C by 2035 we'd hit unstoppable warming up to 3C, 4C, or 5C, I was asked to delete it as it didn't make clear that scientists don't think this is true.
3/
3/
My thread did imply this, but it was not as clear as it could/should have been. The article was a flawed but interesting opinion piece, based, one would imagine on the hothouse Earth theory which many scientists see as deeply problematic, but others take very seriously.
4/
4/
I disagree that a one-off tweet like that is as damaging as denial or downplaying. In fact I never tweet about 'runaway' definitely being inevitable at some point, and don't tweet about it much at all in general. I think one rare tweet to share that view is not a crime, and
5/
5/
far, far, far, far, far more damage is being done by the extensive downplaying of the extraordinary risks of abrupt climate change to be found in everyday discourse, particularly in our media and education systems. Perhaps it would be a good idea to delete the thread and then
6/
6/
replace it with one which makes clear the opinion is rejected by scientists, without actually pretending the article doesn't exist? I certainly don't like the idea of the wider debate on 'doomerism' being shut down with a declaration that doomers are as bad as deniers, but
7/
7/
neither do I want to misinform (the last thing I want) or aggravate unnecessarily.
See this tweet and scroll back up to investigate if you are interested though it's not necessarily worth your time!
)
8/
See this tweet and scroll back up to investigate if you are interested though it's not necessarily worth your time!
)
8/
Let me just state I
think we're likely to hit extremely dangerous 2C of global warming by 2035 - 2045, perhaps before
don't hold the opinion this will definitely trigger unstoppable warming
fear 2C is locked in just from feedbacks and with human emissions I'd project 3- 5C
9/
think we're likely to hit extremely dangerous 2C of global warming by 2035 - 2045, perhaps before
don't hold the opinion this will definitely trigger unstoppable warming
fear 2C is locked in just from feedbacks and with human emissions I'd project 3- 5C
9/
So, back to the point of the thread which is how some aspects of climate change are challenging to me (the science of feedbacks and aerosol loss, and a possible lag etc) and to what degree is there debate among scientists over these factors.
Will feedbacks alone lock in 2C?
10/
Will feedbacks alone lock in 2C?
10/
I understand that between Arctic sea ice loss (0.1 - 0.5C), permafrost (0.2- 0.3), soils and vegetation (0.1 - ??), aerosol loss (0.3 - 1C or even more, some or all of which may be canceled out?), and a lag effect (0.0 - 0.5C),
11a/
11a/
we are heading from today's ~1.3C to 2C or more even without further human emissions (or very few emissions).
This is my back of an envelope calculation from what I've read. I might be wrong, and would be happy to be corrected. It seems though there is real uncertainty...
11b/
This is my back of an envelope calculation from what I've read. I might be wrong, and would be happy to be corrected. It seems though there is real uncertainty...
11b/
I don't see myself as a 'doomer', but I do suspect an incredible number of ecosystems and species are doomed, and I fear a massive loss of human life within decades.
I have no wish to get on the wrong side of scientists from whom I've learnt a great deal.
12/
I have no wish to get on the wrong side of scientists from whom I've learnt a great deal.
12/
I refute the idea that I cannot be trusted to communicate the science honestly. I strive to avoid misleading people, whilst looking at risk and the damage 1) already done, 2) being done and 3) about to be done, in a lively, striking way.
13/
13/
Also, despite what some have suggested, I do listen to the advice and thoughts of scientists and continue to try to get a good grip on areas of doubt and uncertainty to try to improve my communication.
14a/
14a/
I absolutely think we can limit the damage of this climate and ecological catastrophe, but doubt this will happen until more people grasp the severity of our predicament and
14b/
14b/
combine an understanding of climate science with a sense of how ecological damage is being done in a variety of ways (mostly due to corporations and the banks and governments which work with them), either directly or indirectly linked to abrupt climate change.
14c/
14c/
I shall explore the feedback/aerosol/lag question further and get back to you.
And of course, please don't take my tweets as the final word. I try to make them helpful and clear but I encourage everyone to research widely with care and try to come to their own conclusion.
15/15
And of course, please don't take my tweets as the final word. I try to make them helpful and clear but I encourage everyone to research widely with care and try to come to their own conclusion.
15/15
