https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf
If I don't read it in the next week resolves N/A. I might take longer than a week to reflect but no more than two more weeks beyond close date.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ77 | |
| 2 | Ṁ35 | |
| 3 | Ṁ23 | |
| 4 | Ṁ18 | |
| 5 | Ṁ18 |
Climate change seems pretty bad. I think when I was giving the numbers earlier they seemed more abstract, but now they seem more concrete, although still very abstract. I feel very confused/not like I have a clear handle on what's going on here, and I feel extremely uncertain; I could be presented with issues/datapoints and it would completely change how I felt about the answer to this question. I also just.. feel like I don't know what I'm talking about and don't have enough time to investigate all the arguments and models and possible effects.
In terms of its effects it currently vaguely feels like a similar order of magnitude as common preventable diseases, with the effect overall of climate being less bad? (Although they interact with each other a lot, I imagine.) But I have no idea.
The original spirit of the question I had in my head was.. "Will I think climate change is a much larger issue beyond these numbers (those I gave below) and much more important than other things to work on (primarily diseases) on the margin given that many people will work on climate change and governments will coordinate and regulations will be put in place by default." I did not "become much more concerned" in this numbers-y sense, although I am more concerned.
I also feel more concerned, but not much more concerned about climate change in my gut.
I am considering resolving 35%, resolving N/A, or resolving No, though I would be open to other resolutions.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how I should resolve and what would be fair given your understanding of the market and the market title/description? I'm interested in how bettors interpreted the market.
@cloudprism I think I meant: will the effects of climate change seem much worse than other things negatively affecting the world (leaving out AI for simplicity)
Models including the IPCC report suggest that "Average living standards will probably continue to rise" ... "Indirect risks are under-researched but now seem fairly low" ... "tipping points could have very bad effects" but "All this being said, contra some prominent research, the evidence from models and the paleoclimate (the deep climate history of the Earth) suggests that it is not the case that, once warming passes 2ºC-4ºC, runaway feedback loops will kick in that make the world uninhabitable."
I agree that IPCC reports are mostly accurate about the climate, and the most climate-change-skeptical person who is reasonable that I'm aware of (david friedman) also believes they are mostly accurate
I'm not sure their economic projections are correct. Nothing against them specifically, I share the same suspicions about most long-term economic claims. Especially those based one explicit mathematical models, which often just hide the deep complexity of human intelligence applied to the world by appealing to 'srs bsns math simulations'. Predicting the economy is predicting the behavior of the most capable and complex structures of human society, which is a lot harder than climate science (already pretty hard).
@RobertCousineau I am not familiar with climate research currently. I expect to try to spot check some stuff, but won't spend the time to check everything and am not sure ab my ability to check
@NoaNabeshima The general consensus among climate researchers I know is that the IPCC synthesis reports are extremely accurate, since they're a synthesis of papers that have been accepted & published by major scientific journals. The reports are an accurate reflection of what the research says, so how much you trust them depends on how much you trust the research itself.
@jacksonpolack Articles published in good journals are much of the best climate data and analysis that we have.
as I said, I agree, but 'published in a major journal' can coexist with 'being very wrong' generally. le replication crisis etc. Especially in e.g. economics I think there are a lot of wrong things out there. (tbf it makes sense as you go up the scale hierarchy, it'll be harder to understand the phenomena involved. there are only so many things a quark can do when it interacts with another quark, there are several billion distinguishable complex ways "immigration" can interact with "wages" in hypothetical universes)
@NicoDelon I'm.. kind of concerned? I think lots of people are working on it and care about it lots and I don't have skills that are especially suited to helping. I don't think it'll be much more extreme than described below and think there are better opportunities for me to help people to the extent I want to do that. EG earning to give to global health at the very least.
Oh boy. As a climatologist in training (i.e. pursuing an M.A. in the subject), reading the IPCC report makes me significantly more concerned, and I was already very concerned. Things are going to get very, very bad if we don't do something - depression and anxiety are very common among climate researchers for a reason.
curious if you agree/disagree with this? https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BvNxD66sLeAT8u9Lv/climate-change-and-longtermism-new-book-length-report (the summary, not the book-length report ofc)
@jacksonpolack Largely disagree, except for the part about climate change affecting those who are already worse off, and feedback loops being a significant part of the problem.
I currently think (extremely rough guess with little knowledge) maybe 20 million people will be moderately affected (severity a little less than needing to immigrate) and less than 5 million people will die by 2050 as a result of climate change. I also don't think it'll get substantially worse after 2050.
@NoaNabeshima I mean these figures as sort of a measure of the badness in expectation. I only thought for a couple of minutes to produce them.
@NoaNabeshima I also think the odds of all humans dying as a result of climate change by 2100 is less than 2%
@NoaNabeshima Why do you think it won’t get worse after 2050? Do you still believe this after reading the report?