There's a huge gap between what climate scientists are willing to say privately and what we're willing to say publicly, in terms of how dire a situation we're in. Colleagues, integrity demands we close this gap.

This #NewYear we must get serious about climate change. A big obstacle: our brains.

Current risks are vastly different from our ancestors, but our brains are wired the same. Knowing the science behind decision-making helps us better talk about climate threats & spark action. 1/

I’ve dedicated my career to understanding what factors influence our perceptions of risk & shape behavioral outcomes, especially around climate action.

We clearly do not judge risks accurately. Let’s try this example. What is more likely to kill you:

Ppl often say shark attacks even though plane parts are 30x more likely to kill us. Attacks are more sensational/easier to recall.

Brains react in certain ways to risks around us, rapidly scanning environmental cues (e.g. snake’s stance) with subliminal and automated processing.

How does brain wiring relate to climate action? We're influenced by triggers such as if we can see risk or if we trust who communicates it to us.

Bluntly, we overestimate unserious risks like vaccinating children and underestimate seemingly far away risks like rising sea levels.

Sociology shows how even political identities influence risk perception. A human evolutionary trait allows us to avoid cognitive dissonance from info 1) that isn’t pleasant or 2) contradicts beliefs integral to our identity/tribe. We’re wired to make snap judgements for comfort.

Lately, I have been very disturbed with the whole #climatecrisis. Every day some new naturally unnatural calamity looms over our head.
The ice caps are turning in cold rocks and I end up in a rabbit hole feeling helpless.
1/n

It just sucks to imagine a #future where the only way people can enjoy nature as you and I did via #hiking etc is to read blogs and watch videos.
That sucks on so many levels.
2/n

And when I think about the reasons for this situation. I can't seem to go any further but to pin it on #consumption.
Not just fashion or lifestyle consumption. But any damn product.
From the smallest sewing pin to the giant #spaceships.
3/n

Because let's get real. Everything is one or the other form of a natural resource. Even synthetic product like plastic needs cellulose, coal etc. And so far, the only legit source of natural resources is digging deep into the Earth.
4/n

So you dig up these resources and turn them into the products we consume. The shirts, jeans, bike, laptop, phone etc. Everything is made from nature. Along the way creating jobs and the so-called development.
But how good is this #development?
Moreover is this #Sustainable?
5/n

Fascinating new paper by @AndrewDessler and colleagues arguing committed warming might be higher than expected given historical pattern effects. Its combining a lot of different concepts together, so lets spend some time disentangling them https://t.co/ILi5z515Qy

A thread: 1/19

The paper's headline number is that we previously thought the world was committed to 1.3C warming, but that number is actually over 2C (> 1.5C by 2100). This is quite a different message than we get from Earth System Models, which suggest committed warming is only ~1.2C. 2/19

This would imply that the 1.5C by 2100 target is effectively impossible, and that long-term warming of >2C would be very difficult to avoid. However, the devil is in the details, and the picture is not quite as dire as it would seem at first glance. 3/19

When we talk about "committed warming" folks are generally talking about one of two scenarios: either constant CO2 and other GHG concentrations (and forcings), or getting all emissions (or just CO2 emissions) down to zero immediately. 4/19

In the first method – constant concentrations – we find that the world warms up another 0.5C or so, as the oceans continue to take up heat as more energy is being trapped by greenhouse gases than is being emitted back to space. Much of this additional warming happens by 2100 5/19