Thanks for this, would be happy to have a call about it!
One question: how did you source materials for this? E.g. I notice that this does not include probably the most prominent paper skeptical of tipping point risks, so I am a bit worried that this is selecting on the studies that show most concern, rather than a balanced assessment of risk.
In that sense, the tipping point literature to me appears like the nuclear winter literature—huge uncertainties, huge disagreements, and a big resultant risk from over- or understating the risk when wanting to make a case for either high or low risk.
Thank you for the offer to talk! I’ll message you privately to coordinate a call. You’re absolutely right, there are skeptical voices in the field and perhaps I did not adequately highlight them above—that’s something I’ll update. Would you mind sharing the specific paper you’re referring to?
I should also note that the preliminary food system data I mentioned was from our model, where we used much lower probability estimates than the more alarming studies I mention in the post—that includes, conservatively, the lower end of the IPCC estimate. I too hold those more extreme concern estimates with a grain of salt.
My goal was to highlight under-resourced risks, not cherry-pick the scariest scenarios. There is definitely a lot of uncertainty, much like nuclear winter as you point out. I just think it is worth doing more detailed scenario planning IF this were to occur, since we certainly can’t rule out that it won’t (we estimate a 0.1%–3% annual chance of AMOC collapse occurring this century).
FWIW, Johan Rockström has categorized AMOC as a global catastrophic risk (using the CSER University of Cambridge definition) and believes scientists need to shift the narrative to communicating this more clearly and get away from focusing so much on the wide range of uncertainties, which gives politicians permission not to act.
Thanks for this, would be happy to have a call about it!
One question: how did you source materials for this? E.g. I notice that this does not include probably the most prominent paper skeptical of tipping point risks, so I am a bit worried that this is selecting on the studies that show most concern, rather than a balanced assessment of risk.
In that sense, the tipping point literature to me appears like the nuclear winter literature—huge uncertainties, huge disagreements, and a big resultant risk from over- or understating the risk when wanting to make a case for either high or low risk.
Thank you for the offer to talk! I’ll message you privately to coordinate a call.
You’re absolutely right, there are skeptical voices in the field and perhaps I did not adequately highlight them above—that’s something I’ll update. Would you mind sharing the specific paper you’re referring to?
I should also note that the preliminary food system data I mentioned was from our model, where we used much lower probability estimates than the more alarming studies I mention in the post—that includes, conservatively, the lower end of the IPCC estimate. I too hold those more extreme concern estimates with a grain of salt.
My goal was to highlight under-resourced risks, not cherry-pick the scariest scenarios. There is definitely a lot of uncertainty, much like nuclear winter as you point out. I just think it is worth doing more detailed scenario planning IF this were to occur, since we certainly can’t rule out that it won’t (we estimate a 0.1%–3% annual chance of AMOC collapse occurring this century).
FWIW, Johan Rockström has categorized AMOC as a global catastrophic risk (using the CSER University of Cambridge definition) and believes scientists need to shift the narrative to communicating this more clearly and get away from focusing so much on the wide range of uncertainties, which gives politicians permission not to act.