First, remember this is a synthesis report of the peer-reviewed literature. So these results were already out there: sea level rise accelerating; drought, heavy rain & extreme heat risks soaring, massive wildfires. They just hadn't been pulled together into one overwhelming list.
To those of us immersed in the field, the @IPCC's conclusions are no surprise; but for many, it's not until they see it all together, with the impacts on human life clearly laid out, that the penny drops. That's why these reports are so important and so powerful.
We are conducting an unprecedented experiment with the only home that we have. As far back as we can go in the paleoclimate record, there's no example of this much carbon going into the atmosphere this fast. Source: science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/4
Global temperatures are rising faster than any time in the history of human civilization on this planet, and that's why climate change matters: because after the polar bear, we're next. foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/31/eve…
Our entire civilization is built on the assumption that climate varies within bounds that can be predicted based on the past. It's as if we've been driving down the road looking in the rearview mirror: but now we've hit a dangerous curve & our wheels are teetering on the edge.
Why has it taken so long for us to recognize the danger we are all in? There are a few reasons. The first is psychological distance: we humans are really good at dissociating from problems we see as far off in time, space, or relevance.
Also, we scientists are often quite conservative & big synthesis reports like the IPCC are explicitly designed to focus on what everyone can agree on, which has typically been the less alarming possibilities. @NaomiOreskes & colleagues document this here: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
This tendency to understatement in past reports has been so marked that they even coined a term for it: "erring on the side of least drama" or ESLD.
Then there's the fact that we scientists often assume everyone thinks like us. If we just tell them the facts, we assume, they'll get it. They'll understand why this is so bad, and they'll take action. Our job is done. theonion.com/sighing-resign…
But now, things are changing. We've realized that if we don't spell out the fact that it's our civilization we've put on the chopping block ourselves, in words that everyone can understand, emphasizing risks that matter to everyone on this planet, who will?
That's why the US National Climate Assessment had a chapter that I co-authored with @bobkopp that was literally called, "potential surprises". What's the bad stuff that could happen as a result of this unprecedented expt that we might not even know about?! science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/
That's why I've created series of YouTube videos that explain the risks climate change poses to every US region, to my home of Canada, and to everyone on this planet.
That's why over 11,000 scientists wrote and signed this letter warning of a climate emergency last January. academic.oup.com/bioscience/art…
And that's why this new IPCC report is so blunt. Climate change isn't just one more priority on our already over-crowded list. It is a threat multiplier that affects every single other priority already on it, from the air we breathe to the food we eat.
The bottom line is this: to care about climate change, we only have to be one thing and that's a human living on this planet. And we're all that.
PS. some have pointed out, rightly, that we must recognize it hasn't been a level playing field. Over the last 30 years, the fossil fuel industry and others have poured huge amounts of money into literally manufacturing science denial. See: merchantsofdoubt.org
It's not because they genuinely have a problem with 200 years of very basic physics. It's because ...
And that's why our communication must be two-pronged. We need to be aware of the risks--why would we act, otherwise? But we also have to be informed of the solutions--because if not, we'll just be paralyzed. That's why solution-oriented resources like @ProjectDrawdown are so key.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, we get heatwaves in summer. But climate change is loading the dice against us, making them bigger and stronger and longer ... and more deadly. Read more here: cnn.com/2021/06/16/wea…
How much worse is climate change making heatwaves? That depends on where and when: from 3-5F hotter for extreme heatwaves in the Southwest US to 600x more likely for the unprecedented Siberian heatwave from last summer. Sources: crd.lbl.gov/assets/Uploads… & worldweatherattribution.org/siberian-heatw…
As you know, there's a lot of trolling and hate on social media. Do you know of any studies that (a) analyze it, and (b) show whether such attacks expand offline? Not looking for studies on the spread of disinformation; asking more about the nature and scope of ad hom attacks.
Here's one example of how online abuse can be correlated with offline abuse; wondering if there are more, and if anyone has studied this? macleans.ca/politics/ottaw…
Often, the attacks that jump the gap from online to in person are profoundly misogynistic. huffpost.com/entry/anita-sa…
When we hear "Canada" we usually think "forests" ... but the analysis found the greatest potential for carbon storage in our agricultural lands through cover crops, nutrient management, agroforestry and more, with additional contributions from wetlands + grasslands.
In Canada we have a national + rapidly increasing price on carbon; so the study also looked at which measures are currently affordable & which will become affordable as carbon prices rise over the next decade.
The emphasis on personal responsibility is one that other big oil and gas companies have used as well. Exxon, BP and Shell are 3 of the 20 companies responsible for 1/3 of global carbon emissions since 1965. (source: Heede, theguardian.com/environment/20…) ...
Here "three experts point to the history of the carbon footprint, a tool that tells you how much pollution you are creating. The fossil fuel industry, particularly BP, pushed this concept onto the masses in a hugely successful marketing effort 20 yrs ago." discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/h…
Just a few months ago, @Shell paid to have this tweet emphasizing personal responsibility promoted into my timeline. I replied.
Love that we are talking about the importance of communication in science in our #vEGU21 session! I summarized my best advice to fellow scientists at a @Lamont_Doherty talk this past year, watch here:
One quarter of the tweets on the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement were generated by bots and the majority promoted climate denial. This fits with my own experience: about 25-30% of those I have to block score v high on bot detectors (but over 70% don't!) tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
A similar pattern was observed with misinformation that was deliberately manufactured and disseminated regarding the devastating Australian bushfires last year. Lies included the claim that climate activists started the fires to ... prove climate change?! theconversation.com/bushfires-bots…
We humans are suckers for false info that confirms our preexisting biases. That's why fake news on Twitter travels 6x faster than truth. In other words, on avg, the tweets by troll with 10k followers will reach further than those of a scientist with 60k. apnews.com/article/8da97e…