Climate threats = FIRES: Famine, Instability, Refugees, Extinctions, Super-storms

[rambot]

You don't know why scanning a screed and
finding such as Full Scale Nuclear War
( capitalized like it's proper nouns), chocolate
shortage, apocalse, and Oz becomes a Superpower,
and hearing all the nutty things people come
up with tp " fight climate change" just might
result in some people figuring the agw alarmists
are a bunch of meat heads?

OF course that can happen.

Of course, I've also put up clear, reasonable and rational scientific literature and the antiAGW crowd still will think I'm a meathead. Some people are idiots and just think those who they disagree with are meatheads.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you wish to change someone's opinion, it is unwise to call people whose opinions they admire meatheads.

If you wish to change someone's opinion it is unwise to use attatch even a hint of bombast, or emotion to ones argument.

If this guidance is followed, it is often the case that one realises one is on the same side.

Not, of course, that these points could be anyway relevant to this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

OF course that can happen.

Of course, I've also put up clear, reasonable and rational scientific literature and the antiAGW crowd still will think I'm a meathead. Some people are idiots and just think those who they disagree with are meatheads.

Nah.

Just tree huggers.

I don't care for the term "meathead".

 

[Estrid]

If you wish to change someone's opinion, it is unwise to call people whose opinions they admire meatheads.

If you wish to change someone's opinion it is unwise to use attatch even a hint of bombast, or emotion to ones argument.

If this guidance is followed, it is often the case that one realises one is on the same side.

Not, of course, that these points could be anyway relevant to this thread.

Try checking the context inwhich I said it

 

[eclipsenow]

You even got it wrong about who
requested that there be no debate.

I never run from a fight.

I do though remove myself from
where a skunk has sprayed.

So you came into this thread and basically show your ignorance of these matters, call me a meathead and a skunk, and still expect to be taken seriously?
(I would have apologised if I were in your shoes and promised to read the paper. I know I am sometimes wrong on these matters.)

Sure - I'll take that behaviour seriously. You're on my ignore list. The internet is full of people that behave this way and have a particular fantasy monster taxonomy applied to them. I don't have the time for this. I wish you well, and hope whatever led to this behaviour passes. Goodbye.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're on my ignore list.

C'mon, guys.

We're all above this, aren't we?

If we all put each other on IGNORE, we wouldn't learn anything, would we?

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi all,
I edited the OP to include this short video summary of the Xia et al paper.

It's brutal.

It's also NOT the whole point of this thread - because I'd still like to discuss the 'smaller' stuff like economic and lifestyle and political impacts of climate change.

But as one of the very worst potential impacts - let's get this out the way.

4 minutes.

It's rough to contemplate.

 

[Ophiolite]

Try checking the context inwhich I said it

Try contemplating the possibility that you are not always right, and even in some of those instances where you are right it is worth giving ground to achieve a "greater good". There is little that climate deniers can enjoy more than seeing bitter exchanges between individuals convinced of the dangers of climate change.

I'll leave my (hopefully) last words on the matter to Shakespeare.

"A plague a' both your houses!"
Romeo and Juliet Act 3, Scene 1.

 

[eclipsenow]

Try contemplating the possibility that you are not always right, and even in some of those instances where you are right it is worth giving ground to achieve a "greater good". There is little that climate deniers can enjoy more than seeing bitter exchanges between individuals convinced of the dangers of climate change.

I'll leave my (hopefully) last words on the matter to Shakespeare.

"A plague a' both your houses!"
Romeo and Juliet Act 3, Scene 1.

It wasn't just this thread but the last climate thread where were discussing forests and whether regrowing them would impact the climate, or just help local environmental restoration. That suddenly escalated beyond reason as well. So I'm getting a certain impression. If I knew this person in the real world in my local neighbourhood I would invest more time to try to understand what was happening. But this is the internet - and there's a whole world of people 'like that' just itching to have a go at people and waste their time. Also - I don't trust myself. So I just ignore them. For a while. I'll see how things are in a few months.
It wasn't just this thread but the last climate thread where were discussing forests and whether regrowing them would impact the climate, or just help local environmental restoration. That suddenly escalated beyond reason as well. So I'm getting a certain impression. If I knew this person in the real world in my local neighbourhood I would invest more time to try to understand what was happening. But this is the internet - and there's a whole world of people 'like that' just itching to have a go at people and waste their time. Also - I don't trust myself. So I just ignore them. For a while. I'll see how things are in a few months.

 

[Estrid]

It wasn't just this thread but the last climate thread where were discussing forests and whether regrowing them would impact the climate, or just help local environmental restoration. That suddenly escalated beyond reason as well. So I'm getting a certain impression. If I knew this person in the real world in my local neighbourhood I would invest more time to try to understand what was happening. But this is the internet - and there's a whole world of people 'like that' just itching to have a go at people and waste their time. Also - I don't trust myself. So I just ignore them. For a while. I'll see how things are in a few months.

Yes. I remember that. You could not accept that
deforestation affects local climste even when i
provided links.

Try contemplating the possibility that you are not always right, and even in some of those instances where you are right it is worth giving ground to achieve a "greater good". There is little that climate deniers can enjoy more than seeing bitter exchanges between individuals convinced of the dangers of climate change.

I'll leave my (hopefully) last words on the matter to Shakespeare.

"A plague a' both your houses!"
Romeo and Juliet Act 3, Scene 1.

So you didn't check context?
Show me where I am wrong, no prob accepting it.

I don't deny facts re temperstures, storm strength
etc.

My commentary on reporting is that when
 everything* is "climate change" the effect is
self defeating w regard credibility.
So is a lot of bold colorful underlined font
and hyperbolic prose.

Like wearing a clown suit to a business meeting.

If there " wrong" in my saying so, what is it?

* large scale wildfires are cited as "climate change".
And they may be, but the "carbon" thing isn't
necessarily it.

Human activity involving soil degradation,
ecological disruption -invasive species
elimination of local keystone species, suppression
of natural fires, eliminating the small scale burning
practiced by indigenous peoples, all contribute to
not just local climate change but create an unpredicted
fuel load.

Then when a drought and heatwave hit and the
megafire hits, well, that's not about burning too
much fossil fuel.

Great Hinckley Fire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What caused Australia’s disastrous wildfires? It’s complicated

The country’s catastrophic bushfire season could either be a one-off or a new normal, experts say.

pubs.aip.org

 

[eclipsenow]

Here's Kurzgesagt on nuclear winter.
It really weirds-me-out that there are serious papers analysing this stuff and no body talks about it.

 

[eclipsenow]

OK, so getting back to Instability. I'm going to have to read this 32 page PDF sometime soon.
This is the "Threat Multiplier" paper.

“Threat multiplier” has become a widely used term by scholars and practitioners to describe climate change implications for security in both the policy realm and climate-security literature. The term was coined in 2007 by the CNA (Center for Naval Analyses) Military Advisory Board under the leadership of Sherri Goodman. It captures how climate change effects interact with and have the potential to exacerbate pre-existing threats and other drivers of instability to contribute to security risks. The concept has been characterized as “definitional” in having “set a baseline for how to talk about the issue” and having shaped “the way in which people studying climate policy think about risks.” Its use has also been described as “one of the most prominent ways in which the security implications of climate change have been understood.”​

​

This briefer provides an account of the history of the “threat multiplier” term from its creation in the context of the environmental security era in 2007 to its progressive adoption by military, policy, and academic circles in the United States and abroad. It then examines the different conceptual ramifications that have derived from the term and its evolutions in capturing changing climate security realities.​

Briefer: Climate Change as a “Threat Multiplier”: History, Uses and Future of the Concept - The Council on Strategic Risks

This briefer provides an account of the history of the “threat multiplier” term from its creation in the context of the environmental security era in 2007 to its progressive adoption by military, policy, and academic circles in the United States and abroad.

councilonstrategicrisks.org

 

[Solo81]

Hi all,
At the moment I'm putting out a call out for any good papers you know of that summarise the "I" for Instability.

INSTABILITY sums up climate impacts on economic prosperity and lifestyles including mundane - even petty things - like price rises in luxury goods (chocolate, coffee) through to major economic impacts, radicalisation of domestic politics, and the fact that climate change may just spark regional wars.

There's an argument that climate change acted as the last straw that broke the back of Syrian stability. Or to mix metaphors - climate change lit the spark that was Syria after all the Iraqi refugees fled the second Gulf War.

So I'm interested in domestic politics and economics and lifestyle changes - through to the very worst case scenarios.

THE WORST CASE SCENARIO - (not what this whole thread should be about!)​

This is crazy stuff. Scientific - backed by peer-reviewed papers - but still crazy. It's not the sort of stuff you talk about at polite dinner parties. The Pentagon calls climate change a "Threat Multiplier". I think they should call it the "Ultimate Threat Multiplier" if there's a chance of this next scenario breaking out. If climate change provokes full scale nuclear war, the worst thing about climate change is it might provoke us to our worst.

The latest climate science from studying Australia's 2019 mega-fires casts new light on how 'black carbon' in soot behaves up in the stratosphere. The sun's rays keep it floating around like a hot air balloon. This prolongs the nuclear winter - making it so, so much worse.

Here's the crazy bit - the bit you don't talk about at parties.
The northern hemisphere may just starve back to 1% of their original population! (Xia et al, August 2022).
The following short Youtube is based on that Xia et al paper. It's truly horrific - the worst thing on my blog.

Over 5 billion may starve.
In the worst case scenario - only 1% of the Northern Hemisphere survives. Think about that! The USA's 330 million down to 3.3 million - if that. They go from being a super-power to half the size of Sydney - Australia! Check the map. Even YELLOW is horrific - meaning your government has had to decide which of your 25% to 50% of your population had to starve and who survives! No country would be the same after something like that - not for generations. Light GREEN is horrific - 1% to 25% - up to a quarter of your population starving.

But orange and brown? Forget it. Gone.

View attachment 345998



Warmer oceans down south help shield Australia and Argentina somewhat. After reading a few of these papers and thinking it through with my social sciences background - my guess is that after the skies cleared 5 to 10 years later, Australia and Argentina would probably emerge as the new super-powers in a catastrophically reduced world. But that's just an introduction to the very worst case scenario.

I is for Instability.​

I'm still interested in the smaller stuff - like increased prices, reduced lifestyles, inflamed politics, etc.
Do you have good references for papers like that - or a particular area that you care about?

(This post edited after some negative feedback in the thread below.)

I stopped reading when i hit the 'climate caused Syria's problems' bit.

USA caused Syrian war. Syria was to begin processing significant oil shale reserves until the CIA-sponsored 'Arab Spring' visited Syria as part of its Middle Eastern Tour.

And now people are thinking climate change is the cause?!...

 

[Estrid]

I stopped reading when i hit the 'climate caused Syria's problems' bit.

USA caused Syrian war.

One utlandish unsupportable claim doesn't cancel
another.

 

[Solo81]

One utlandish unsupportable claim doesn't cancel
another.

Dear Estrid,
if you are American, I invite you to familiarise yourself with your Nations Foreign Policy.
It can be found online or probably at a Public building like a library.

Then come back to me.

 

[eclipsenow]

I stopped reading when i hit the 'climate caused Syria's problems' bit.

USA caused Syrian war. Syria was to begin processing significant oil shale reserves until the CIA-sponsored 'Arab Spring' visited Syria as part of its Middle Eastern Tour.

And now people are thinking climate change is the cause?!...

Hi,
I appreciate your concerns. Do you have links to the CIA claims? I'm aware the Middle East is complex and of other factors in the Arab Spring - but may have missed that one - or read it and then forgotten it. It's a big world with a lot to remember.

Look - I agree that there are many causes for such incidents. I'm also aware that I tend to write with some hyperbole and over-simplification when tired and / or emotionally invested in something. Apologies.

What I meant to say was climate change can be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back - the spark that ignites the huge pile of tinder-dry kindling and firewood that was almost about to burst into flame from other causes as well. How about I hand over to someone qualified to write about the concept? Weirdly if you had read through to here - you would have found this much better definition in my very last post just above yours.

“Threat multiplier” has become a widely used term by scholars and practitioners to describe climate change implications for security in both the policy realm and climate-security literature. The term was coined in 2007 by the CNA (Center for Naval Analyses) Military Advisory Board under the leadership of Sherri Goodman. It captures how climate change effects interact with and have the potential to exacerbate pre-existing threats and other drivers of instability to contribute to security risks. The concept has been characterized as “definitional” in having “set a baseline for how to talk about the issue” and having shaped “the way in which people studying climate policy think about risks.” Its use has also been described as “one of the most prominent ways in which the security implications of climate change have been understood.”​

Briefer: Climate Change as a “Threat Multiplier”: History, Uses and Future of the Concept - The Council on Strategic Risks

This briefer provides an account of the history of the “threat multiplier” term from its creation in the context of the environmental security era in 2007 to its progressive adoption by military, policy, and academic circles in the United States and abroad.

councilonstrategicrisks.org

Wow - that's the 3rd time I've edited the OP. I've got to slow down and be more careful in how I write. Or is there something just inherently provocative in the topic itself?

 

[Estrid]

Dear Estrid,
if you are American, I invite you to familiarise yourself with your Nations Foreign Policy.
It can be found online or probably at a Public building like a library.

Then come back to me.

I'm not American.

An American library could support both of those claims?

 

[Solo81]

Hi,
I appreciate your concerns. Do you have links to the CIA claims? I'm aware the Middle East is complex and of other factors in the Arab Spring - but may have missed that one - or read it and then forgotten it. It's a big world with a lot to remember.

Look - I agree that there are many causes for such incidents. I'm also aware that I tend to write with some hyperbole and over-simplification when tired and / or emotionally invested in something. Apologies.

What I meant to say was climate change can be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back - the spark that ignites the huge pile of tinder-dry kindling and firewood that was almost about to burst into flame from other causes as well. How about I hand over to someone qualified to write about the concept? Weirdly if you had read through to here - you would have found this much better definition in my very last post just above yours.

“Threat multiplier” has become a widely used term by scholars and practitioners to describe climate change implications for security in both the policy realm and climate-security literature. The term was coined in 2007 by the CNA (Center for Naval Analyses) Military Advisory Board under the leadership of Sherri Goodman. It captures how climate change effects interact with and have the potential to exacerbate pre-existing threats and other drivers of instability to contribute to security risks. The concept has been characterized as “definitional” in having “set a baseline for how to talk about the issue” and having shaped “the way in which people studying climate policy think about risks.” Its use has also been described as “one of the most prominent ways in which the security implications of climate change have been understood.”​

Briefer: Climate Change as a “Threat Multiplier”: History, Uses and Future of the Concept - The Council on Strategic Risks

This briefer provides an account of the history of the “threat multiplier” term from its creation in the context of the environmental security era in 2007 to its progressive adoption by military, policy, and academic circles in the United States and abroad.

councilonstrategicrisks.org

Wow - that's the 3rd time I've edited the OP. I've got to slow down and be more careful in how I write. Or is there something just inherently provocative in the topic itself?

You're asking for a link confirming CIA involvement in fostering civil war in a foreign Nation? Really?

 

[Solo81]

I'm not American.

An American library could support both of those claims?

Dear Estrid,
I invite you to familiarise yourself with their Nations Foreign Policy.
It can be found online.

Then come back to me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Dear Estrid,
I invite you to familiarise yourself with their Nations Foreign Policy.
It can be found online.

Then come back to me.

Before she invests time in pursuing that, perhaps you could just answer her question. It doesn't appear to be too difficult. Engaging in a lengthy period of study to get an answer to a simple question seems a strange barrier to erect against open discussion.