We have 10 years

22,123 Views | 178 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by quash
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/amp/
303Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't Al Gore say the same thing 12 years ago or so?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If the end of the industrialized world via climate change really were imminent, governments of the world wouldn't try and fix it with carbon pricing or taxation.

They would be slaughtering us and lowering the population etc.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
303Bear said:

Didn't Al Gore say the same thing 12 years ago or so?
That's the beautiful thing about making predictions so far out, people forget about them by the time it comes around and you can just make new predictions that won't come true either.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Odd that the same people telling us we'll die from not signing the Paris climate accord, are now pushing this 10 year doomsday scenario.

Despite the climate accord saying the temperature will raise too high at the end of the century and the other only giving us a decade.

The science between the two are astronomically different...how can that be lol?
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Odd that the same people telling us we'll die from not signing the Paris climate accord, are now pushing this 10 year doomsday scenario.

Despite the climate accord saying the temperature will raise too high at the end of the century and the other only giving us a decade.

The science between the two are astronomically different...how can that be lol?
Different denominations of the climate change orthodoxy.
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

If the end of the industrialized world via climate change really were imminent, governments of the world wouldn't try and fix it with carbon pricing or taxation.

They would be slaughtering us and lowering the population etc.


Did you mention planned parenthood?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.
What, specifically, do you recommend?
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Climate chicken littles have been predicting doomsday scenarios "within the next 10 years" or by such and such a year for almost 50 years now. And of course none of it ever comes even close to coming true. I remember well being told how we're all going to be dead by the year 1990 or otherwise living in the stone age if you're lucky enough to be one of the few survivors of the environmental disaster "mankind is surely causing". How many times has Al Gore alone predicted apocalyptic environmental disaster only to be made a complete fool when his prediction turns out to be a 100% fail? The climate alarmists, who are actually radical leftists trying to impose their ideology through means of extreme scare tactics, have less credibility than your average run of the mill village idiot.
DaveyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lefties have to come up with non-provable (theoretical), peer approved garbage to maintain relevance.

Not going to change folks.

Lefties are only happy when they try to make others as miserable as they are.
JaMycal Hasty through 9/22
Rush 29 att 182 yds 6.3 ypc
Rec 9 rec 80 yds 8.9 ypc
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I predict there will be more climate change predictions ...
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040...
So, in other words, IF the emission trend continues, the atmospheric temperature COULD warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees F. above pre-1760 A.D. temperatures.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DaveyBear said:

Lefties have to come up with non-provable (theoretical), peer approved garbage to maintain relevance.

Not going to change folks.

Lefties are only happy when they try to make others as miserable as they are.
That's the problem. Real science depends on independent, repeatable results. In some cases, the "scientists" don't disclose their methodology so it can't be tested and most times when the metholodgies are disclosed, the results can't be repeated by independent third-parties. It is junk science at its finest.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.
What, specifically, do you recommend?
"Acknowledging that the problem exists would be a great start. But we'll never do that because Republicans, the patriarchy, and pedophile priests are too busy assaulting a woman's constitutional right to make private and intensely personal health care related medical choice decisions."
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
If an ice cube melts in water, what happens to the water level?
Pablo Fanque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If the ice cube is in the water, then the water level will fall. If the ice cube is in a funnel that drains into the glass, then I'm thinking the water level will rise.

Now, please stop being so stupid that I feel compelled to align with jinx.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pablo Fanque said:

If the ice cube is in the water, then the water level will fall. If the ice cube is in a funnel that drains into the glass, then I'm thinking the water level will rise.

Now, please stop being so stupid that I feel compelled to align with jinx.
Not exactly.

The water level is displaced by the ice cube and nothing will happen to the water level when it melts for the most part.. When floating, the ice displaces an amount of water equal to it's mass, and when melted, it becomes an amount of water equal to it's mass.

The fear mongering of melted ice caps is that it's supposed to raise the water level.

We would see it coming and naturally move inland over a long period of time.

Second, scientists pushing this propaganda have vastly overlooked water displacement.
Pablo Fanque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't forget the ice that is covering land. Otherwise, I agree that adapting is likely a better response than trying to preserve a dynamic system in some particular state, even if we are messing with the dynamic system by our actions.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
She's going to say carbon tax, vehicle tax, increased cost for energy, banning of certain vehicles and then let the government handle the rest because they are so good with money and never waste it.

GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.

Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a waterglass constitute authoritative evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--is warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

As a small start, we could stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S.


Water displacement is a major scientific factor here that you cannot simply write off.

If you're expecting us to accept your science (which is contradicting itself) then you better accept one of the most fundamental aspects of science in history.

As a start you want coal gone...what else?

Also, this study is at odds with the paris climate accord: which one of them do you believe?
cybrarian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MIght have better luck posting this in Mandarin or Hindi
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bpco2.png
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cybrarian said:

MIght have better luck posting this in Mandarin or Hindi

India will be a mess.

If China decides to do something, the Chinese will turn on a dime--regardless of how many people it hurts.
bearassnekkid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.


Serious question: Why do you care? Is it because you want to save people? Is it people that you're worried about? Because even if your doomsday scenario occurs and water levels rise, this isn't happening overnight. You know that, right? People will just move. Over very long periods of time.

Plus, I can't imagine it's the people you're worried about because, after all, it's people that are causing this "disaster" to your sacred planet right? All of these climate changes have occurred in the past, but THIS one, well, this one is caused by people. So it's way worse. And people will be affected. If only there weren't so many people. Which brings us to another point.

If you're so worried about saving people, why are you totally cool with slaughtering millions of them before they come through the birth canal? Or is that really why you support abortion-on-demand? As population control to save the "environment?" Are you sacrificing those babies on the altar to Mother Nature? Your worship of nature borders on paganism, and your lack of regard for human life is barbaric. So tell me, why do you really care if some polar ice (that was once water), turns back into water?
CutTheTVoff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's listen to a scientist who's not a propagandist. 5 minutes.


Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.


Fair answer, but you can't expect me to sign a blank check. I'd like to know the economic effects, cost v benefit, probability of success, etc. before signing onto your program.

LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.
What, specifically, do you recommend?
"Acknowledging that the problem exists would be a great start. But we'll never do that because Republicans, the patriarchy, and pedophile priests are too busy assaulting a woman's constitutional right to make private and intensely personal health care related medical choice decisions."
if you mean scrapping a living baby out of the womb, tearing it to pieces,vacuuming it out and telling the mom who is much more likely to have psychological issues than other women, then just say so.

ps... is the babies health better before or after being torn apart? ( you know since your concerned about health choices)
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.


Fair answer, but you can't expect me to sign a blank check. I'd like to know the economic effects, cost v benefit, probability of success, etc. before signing onto your program.


Wouldn't we all.

There are way too many moving parts on the science end.

But we aren't seriously focused on identifying them, which must be a global effort, so we can make good policy decisions cuz Republicans won't admit it's happening. North Carolina passed a law a few years back that effectively precluded coastal developers from considering the impact of climate change. I will be interested to see how the disasterous hurricane affects their climate policy going forward, since N.C. (and lower Manhattan) don't fare well in lots of models.
drahthaar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That same prediction began during Al Gore's few minutes of fame so I guess that's the second or third "ten year doomsday" chant. That come from the UN braintrust?
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some folks need to forget about Al Gore and focus on saving the human race.

What scientists are studying is not mere 'weather' nor a natural warming cycle.

Rather...the obvious impact of 7 billion people on the planet when there were only 1 billion people as recently as 1875.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

Osodecentx said:

Jinx 2 said:

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.


Fair answer, but you can't expect me to sign a blank check. I'd like to know the economic effects, cost v benefit, probability of success, etc. before signing onto your program.


Regarding cost and benefit:
Quote:

By the 2070s, the IPCC--the U.N. climate change panel--estimates that warming will cost between 0.2 and 2 percent of global GDP. This is certainly a problem, but not the end of world.

Speaking of climate change in catastrophic terms easily makes us ignore bigger problems, including malnutrition, tuberculosis, malaria and corruption. The World Health Organization estimates that climate change since the 1970s causes about 140,000 additional deaths each year, and toward the middle of the century will kill 250,000 people annually, mostly in poor countries. This pales in comparison with much deadlier environmental problems such as indoor air pollution, claiming 4.3 million lives annually, outdoor air pollution killing 3.7 million and lack of water and sanitation killing 760,000. Outside of environment, the problems are even bigger: Poverty arguably kills 18 million each year.

Every dollar spent on climate change could instead help save many more people from these more tractable problems. The current approach to subsidize solar and wind arguably saves one life across the century for every $4 million dollars spent--the same expenditure on vaccinations could save 4,000 lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/09/19/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-lets-get-our-priorities-straight/?utm_term=.56605ed89254&noredirect=on
Regarding probability of success:
Quote:

How much do temperatures actually increase when atmospheric carbon dioxide increases? Scientists express this relationship as a measure of "equilibrium climate sensitivity," defined as how many degrees average global temperature will increase as a result of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide. Virtually all the climate models used in the IPCC's worst-case predictions of dangerous global warming presume a worst-case scenario equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 3.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius. But leading IPCC scientists have concluded that if humans were responsible for all observed warming since 1971, the ECS would be around 2.0 degrees Celsius. And if humans are only responsible for about half of the observed warming, as the IPCC itself admits is quite possible, that implies an ECS closer to 1.0 degrees Celsius.

A reliable figure for ECS continues to elude our grasp, but with an ECS of 1.0 degrees Celsius, the case for sweeping reductions in carbon emissions is greatly weakened. At that level of climate sensitivity, even if carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase unabated, temperatures would increase significantly less than the stated goal of the IPCC's, which is warming of no more than two degrees Celsius by 2100. (This may explain why the Paris agreement moved the goalposts to a new goal of less than 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100). But in that case, IPCC's worst-case scenario would then be non-catastrophic by the IPCC's own definition.

The policy implications are dramatic. Under this scenario, which lies well within the IPCC's forecast, even dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would have no measurable impact on temperatures. And the natural factors responsible for as much as half the recently observed warming would presumably continue warming the planet, oblivious to any reduction in carbon emissions.

The key point is this: The IPCC's latest "attribution statement" (extreme confidence that more than half the observed warming is due to humans) would be correct even if ECS is only 1.0 degrees Celsius and expected increases in carbon dioxide pose essentially no risk of catastrophic climate change.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.