The latest figures and weather consequences of global warming

[Ahmed]

The Earth system is so complex that it would obviously be very surprising if only one factor came into play ... The fact that it is difficult to estimate the anthropic share should not lead to not taking it into account until to be fixed (which may not happen!).

[ABC2019]

The Earth system is so complex that it would obviously be very surprising if only one factor came into play ... The fact that it is difficult to estimate the anthropic share should not lead to not taking it into account until to be fixed (which may not happen!).

nobody said that it shouldn't be taken into account, at least not me.

But to take them into account also means weighing the advantages and disadvantages of any action, like everywhere else in life, instead of deciding what to do before having weighed the consequences.

[Ahmed]

Yes, but to weigh the pros and cons in a thinking system that will shrink from what it implies (if we also take into account other criteria at least as important as CR and probably more urgent) or on the contrary (this is the current trend!) jump at the opportunity to create new outlets (thus ignoring the previous point) ...
So the debate is seriously biased before I even start ...

[ABC2019]

Yes, but to weigh the pros and cons in a thinking system that will shrink from what it implies (if we also take into account other criteria at least as important as CR and probably more urgent) or on the contrary (this is the current trend!) jump at the opportunity to create new outlets (thus ignoring the previous point) ...
So the debate is seriously biased before I even start ...

You confuse a "bias" with a "difference of opinion". We have the right to have differences of opinion on the value of such or such criterion, it is human, after that we need a social mechanism to determine who decides: in a monarchy it will be the opinion of the king which will be preponderant. , in a democracy it will be the opinion of the party which obtained the most votes in the elections (which does not necessarily mean the opinion of the people), etc, etc ...

The bias is when your assessment of the pros or cons according to your own criteria is not good, because it is biased by a method defect.

[Ahmed]

The bias is precisely introduced by the difference of opinion: since your criteria are different from mine, for example, you will not arrive at the same conclusions on the basis of identical facts or data ...
What constitutes the bias in the case mentioned is that those who are motivated by economic motivations will completely change the meaning of the measures required, especially since they are only interested in RC, forgetting all the other biocidal tendencies, since it will necessarily result in a general worsening of the initial causes (by increasing energy dissipation or financial flow [optional]).

[ABC2019]

The bias is precisely introduced by the difference of opinion: since your criteria are different from mine, for example, you will not arrive at the same conclusions starting from identical facts or data ...

I would tend to say the opposite, a difference of opinion may be caused by a bias, but not necessarily.
Let us take two concrete examples: starting from the over-representation of black-skinned men in prisons, we could deduce that crime is genetically linked to skin color. There is an obvious bias in this conclusion, which is that we ignore a major confounding factor which is the level of poverty and social class. If one studies for the same socio-economic level, the conclusion would be very different. This is a bias.

Another example: we know that building an airport will make swamps in which a rare frog threatened with extinction lives. Everyone agrees on this, but some believe that it is a disaster, and others believe that economic activity should not stop because of a frog. There, there is no bias, everyone agrees on the facts, but there is a difference of opinion.

In the first case we can correct it "scientifically", in the second, we cannot, there is no scientific reason which says who is right or wrong. You just need some social consensus-building procedures to know how to decide if people don't agree.

The problem with CR is that it combines both: the media discourse introduces a lot of cognitive bias, and in addition, the procedure by which one should decide what to do has never been explained.

[Ahmed]

In your second example, the dominance of the economy introduces a massive bias, so that the outcome of this debate (if it takes place!) Is not in the shadow of a doubt ...

[ABC2019]

In your second example, the dominance of the economy introduces a massive bias, so that the outcome of this debate (if it takes place!) Is not in the shadow of a doubt ...

except that it is not a "bias", in the sense that it could be corrected by a more objective analysis: it is just a majority opinion (with which you have the right to disagree).

[GuyGadebois]

Sea level rise could drown mangrove forests by 2050

If climate action does not intensify soon, mangrove forests could drown under the rising waters by 2050, according to a new study that has examined mangrove ecosystems around the world. This would be bad news for the whole planet, because trees store carbon dioxide and protect communities from storms and coastal erosion.

Researchers at Rutgers University in the United States have said that mangrove forests will be in danger if sea levels rise by more than 6 millimeters per year. Although it may sound like a lot, the threshold could actually be reached in just 30 years if the world does not reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The planet has already warmed by more than one degree Celsius, which has a number of consequences. Sea levels are already increasing by 3 millimeters per year worldwide, although in some parts of the world there is a more dramatic change. Island states like the Polynesian archipelago of Tuvalu are particularly threatened.
Mangrove ecosystems can adapt to a certain level of sea level rise by migrating inland and accumulating sediment. But their defense mechanisms are only effective up to a point, after which they simply can't keep up. This is what the researchers wanted to determine by looking at their history.

They examined sediment data from 78 mangrove ecosystems over the past ten millennia. They were able to determine that mangroves are more likely to die when the rate of sea level rise exceeds 6 millimeters. The problem is that we will exceed this limit by 2050 if climate action does not intensify.

The consequences would be massive. Mangrove ecosystems, found in many parts of the world, from Africa to Argentina, store more carbon dioxide than tropical forests, so if they die, it would be very bad news for the planet. Mangroves are also very rich in biodiversity, as they provide habitat for many species, from which fishermen derive their livelihood.
The roots of this mangrove help absorb greenhouse gas emissions at densities much higher than those of other forests. (Nicole Khan)

According to study co-author Erica Ashe of Rutgers University:

"If they disappear, there will be an imbalance in the number of fish and other species that depend on them. And that could have effects on other species, even those that are not really protected by these mangroves, because when the levels of different species change, it can affect the whole system. "

But we can still prevent this from happening. Governments must find solutions to keep sea level rise below this threshold "in order to mitigate climate change and protect the millions of people who depend on mangroves for shelter, protection from flooding, eat and get fiber, ”wrote Catherine Lovelock, professor at the University of Queensland (Australia), in an article commenting on the study.

The countries are committed to limiting global warming to 2 ° C by signing the Paris Agreement in 2015. However, their current commitments in terms of climate place us in a world where the temperature could reach 4 ° C by 2010 This year, new commitments must be presented by the countries to increase the levels of ambition.

https://www.gurumed.org/2020/06/06/lele ... dici-2050/
sources:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6495/1118
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/mangrove-t ... -arent-cut
https://www.hku.hk/press/news_detail_21078.html

[Ahmed]

ABC, You answer:

Except that it is not a "bias", in the sense that it could be corrected by a more objective analysis: it is just a majority opinion (with which you have the right to disagree).

It does not matter if it is not a stricto sensu bias: it is sufficiently influential to guide the conclusion. The illustration being made by almost unanimity on this subject (the dissension relates to the allocation of resources, not really on their origin, which makes consensus).