4 ms·
In Paris climate conference we decided not to rise temperature over 2.8 degrees. If global temperature will rise over 5.5 degrees not the melting of ice will be
by lossolo 10y ago
In Paris climate conference we decided not to rise temperature over 2.8 degrees. If global temperature will rise over 5.5 degrees not the melting of ice will be our biggest problem, crops will die, plankton in seas will die (60% of oxygen production). So the real-world effect will be game over.
- neffy 10y agoNo, the temperature has been significantly higher before - to the point that the poles had a tropical climate. Climate change isn't the end of the world, just the end of the world as we know it.
- Daishiman 10y agoYeah, but that happened slowly enough that species adapted. This is going far, far too rapidly.
- neffy 10y agoSome species survived and adapted, some didn't. Hey, evolution! The available evidence on the onset/offset for major climatic swings over the last 1 million years does suggest between a 10 - 100 year switching time, probably linked to the global conveyor belt currents switching between different states. We have a fairly good understanding of the onset of the current inter-glacial. We don't, because ice cores and other information gets progressively harder to read, the further you go back, know all that much about the onset of a glacial period, but it does appear to be fairly quick. (Not Day after Tomorrow quick, but definitely within a lifetime quick.) We're coming to what would normally be the end of the current inter-glacial, we have record C02 levels, and the gulf stream has been slowing down for the last 20 years. Nobody really knows whats going to happen next - but the UK Met office was apparently sufficiently alarmed to issue a blog post saying absolutely nothing if you read it carefully. Interesting times.
- memracom 10y agoI don't understand this statement. How can a conference decide not to raise global temperature over 2.8 degrees? For that matter, is there any scientific evidence that humans can actually take collective action to slow or stop global temperature increases? It's all well and good to say that if I personally generate less CO2 then I personally will have less impact on temperature rise, but collectively, the impact depends on lots of other people's decisions, on population growth, on animal populations particularly cows. And of course if we are already on a trajectory that will increasingly release methane from clathrates, then what if that dwarfs changes in human activity? There does seem to be some evidence that things like carbon taxes are mainly a bureaucratic boondoggle to enrich some people and to hide CO2 production by shifting it to some place that people don't look at too closely. We must never forget that bureaucracy drives corruption no matter what the underlying political system is. So if people are truly serious about collective human action to slow CO2 production or reverse it, we must be even more serious about cleaning out corruption at all levels in all countries.
- inimino 10y agoBecause it is a conference of governments, and governments can impose regulation. The 2.8 is a target.
- i2amsam 10y agoSo our options are having civilization collapse, clean up all corruption everywhere before trying anything, or trying something that "some research" says might be ineffective? Seems like that's a pretty easy choice.