Comment box Scope: info request, observations Tone: neutral, curious Opinion: some/minimal Sarcasm/humor: some humor, mostly serious I would call this website "cool" but the subject matter forbids...
Comment box
Scope: info request, observations
Tone: neutral, curious
Opinion: some/minimal
Sarcasm/humor: some humor, mostly serious
I would call this website "cool" but the subject matter forbids me. It is very nicely designed and illustrates several tangible effects of climate change in a clear way. Thank you for posting this link so that we can discuss it.
The probability of having "average drought lengths" of 10+ months with 3C warming is the most terrifying part about all of this. Compare that to 2 months for 1.5C... yikes. And of course the severe ones could be multiple years long. The amount of crop failures a long continent-wide drought could cause has more capacity to collapse the entirety of civilization than possibly anything else.
I don't think I've ever seen a projection for 2300 before. Honestly I have never even thought about that year. Not once in my life. I will be so far beyond dead I wouldn't even know where to start. I am curious how they settled on those numbers. The Methodology section doesn't seem to explain? I assume they are simply extrapolating based on 2100 numbers, but I'm not sure if they're trying to be conservative or not.
Given that recent projections put 1.5C as a largely unrealistic target now, 2C as possible if aspirational, and 3C as a more likely result, this website is scarier than it would have been in 2018. I wish it had more data in that column, and for higher values of warming.
On a related note, stats like "average number of tropical nights" sounds like a potentially misleading metric. I think a lot of people reading that in cold European countries in the winter would ask, "What's the problem with that? I'd love another 3 tropical nights this year!" I think that stats by themselves only work with people who are attuned to stats, like the kinds of people who use Tildes. Less numerically inclined people need really explicit context to understand why these numbers mean bad things. Even for me, emotionally I actually struggle to find super pressing significance in the British Isles having two more annual "hot days," even though intellectually I see the problem.
For the specifics of projections, you can check out the citations given for the section that mentions the 2300 projections. It's on the left of each section.
For the specifics of projections, you can check out the citations given for the section that mentions the 2300 projections. It's on the left of each section.
Carbon Brief is a wonderful site for communicating climate science in more thorough analyses. It's still science communication and is subject to its limitations, but a much more detailed version...
Carbon Brief is a wonderful site for communicating climate science in more thorough analyses. It's still science communication and is subject to its limitations, but a much more detailed version of it than most science communication sites.
This is a compilation the site gathered for comparing the impacts of different warming scenarios, and the method used in its creation is given in the bottom Methodology section. It seems thorough, but two things should be kept in mind. First, it's a thorough compilation of scientific findings, but the list itself is still not a scientific publication. So, a reviewer in a scientific journal might have pointed out some things they missed. And second, the list was compiled in 2018, and I imagine many more articles must have come out since then, especially considering IPCC published their special report calling for limiting the warming to 1.5 degrees in 2018.
You might ask, then, why did I share it? It's because the list is still a very striking snapshot of the scientific literature at the time, which is not that old, and it's also a rare occurance to see such a detailed list in science communication. Long story short, it's a very nice and informative list, but keep in mind that there might be studies they missed, and there should be newer studies that have come out since then.
Comment box
I would call this website "cool" but the subject matter forbids me. It is very nicely designed and illustrates several tangible effects of climate change in a clear way. Thank you for posting this link so that we can discuss it.
The probability of having "average drought lengths" of 10+ months with 3C warming is the most terrifying part about all of this. Compare that to 2 months for 1.5C... yikes. And of course the severe ones could be multiple years long. The amount of crop failures a long continent-wide drought could cause has more capacity to collapse the entirety of civilization than possibly anything else.
I don't think I've ever seen a projection for 2300 before. Honestly I have never even thought about that year. Not once in my life. I will be so far beyond dead I wouldn't even know where to start. I am curious how they settled on those numbers. The Methodology section doesn't seem to explain? I assume they are simply extrapolating based on 2100 numbers, but I'm not sure if they're trying to be conservative or not.
Given that recent projections put 1.5C as a largely unrealistic target now, 2C as possible if aspirational, and 3C as a more likely result, this website is scarier than it would have been in 2018. I wish it had more data in that column, and for higher values of warming.
On a related note, stats like "average number of tropical nights" sounds like a potentially misleading metric. I think a lot of people reading that in cold European countries in the winter would ask, "What's the problem with that? I'd love another 3 tropical nights this year!" I think that stats by themselves only work with people who are attuned to stats, like the kinds of people who use Tildes. Less numerically inclined people need really explicit context to understand why these numbers mean bad things. Even for me, emotionally I actually struggle to find super pressing significance in the British Isles having two more annual "hot days," even though intellectually I see the problem.
For the specifics of projections, you can check out the citations given for the section that mentions the 2300 projections. It's on the left of each section.
Carbon Brief is a wonderful site for communicating climate science in more thorough analyses. It's still science communication and is subject to its limitations, but a much more detailed version of it than most science communication sites.
This is a compilation the site gathered for comparing the impacts of different warming scenarios, and the method used in its creation is given in the bottom Methodology section. It seems thorough, but two things should be kept in mind. First, it's a thorough compilation of scientific findings, but the list itself is still not a scientific publication. So, a reviewer in a scientific journal might have pointed out some things they missed. And second, the list was compiled in 2018, and I imagine many more articles must have come out since then, especially considering IPCC published their special report calling for limiting the warming to 1.5 degrees in 2018.
You might ask, then, why did I share it? It's because the list is still a very striking snapshot of the scientific literature at the time, which is not that old, and it's also a rare occurance to see such a detailed list in science communication. Long story short, it's a very nice and informative list, but keep in mind that there might be studies they missed, and there should be newer studies that have come out since then.