3 ms·

It's much more than a 2C rise and that will happer much faster than 2200. Even 2C is half an ice-age in magnitude, and it would be happening much faster. You c

It's much more than a 2C rise and that will happer much faster than 2200. Even 2C is half an ice-age in magnitude, and it would be happening much faster. You can read my attempt at a primer, which details some of the consequences here : https://climate.btmx.fr https://climate.btmx.fr

ThomPete 8y ago
2C is the popularized number. In reality it's a range (0.8-2.6 for 2050 and 1.4-1.4-5.8 for 2100) and it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have to do with it (we are probably affecting it but how much is still an open question) We have been figthing to survive nature from the start. Ex. sea rise is not a problem that can't be solved just look at Holland. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29
- lozenge 8y ago
  > it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have to do with it (we are probably affecting it but how much is still an open question) What is your point in saying this? Everything always has uncertainties, but scientists and economists are in agreement there is enough known that we need large changes in energy use (which affects all sectors of the economy). That is found in the latest version of the report you linked to, or even the version you linked. The idea that Bangladesh can "solve" sea level rise because Holland can is laughable. Just look at these maps: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-...
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Not sure there is any reason to debate someone who deliberately oversimplify what I say, call it laughable and then point to a highly biased website. Of course Holland and Bangladesh isn't the same situation so to call your own strawman laughable says a lot about where you are coming from in this. But against my better judgement I am still engaging in the hopes that you are in fact interested in hearing what my point is. Yes everything has uncertainties which would be good to remember in this debate as thats the difference between whether we are doomed or whether the climate will change as I has always done and we need to adjust to it. Instead of trying to claim that we know for a fact what the outcome is, how big our involvement in climate change is, how much we can do something about. Even the IPCC does not deal in such certainties and have toned down their doomsdaying over the years. That's important to keep in mind before we all jump on the "we are doomed" bandwagon. There are things we can do especially these days as we are much better at handling nature than we were 100 years ago which means that no matter how much of climate change is manmade we have a better chance of dealing with the consequences today than if those changes had happened 100 years ago.
akvadrako 8y ago
We don't know historical global temperatures well enough to say if anthropogenic warming is particularly fast. For example the Younger Dryas¹, about 15ky ago. The best estimate is global temp dropped 2-6° over 50 years and 1000 years later, did the opposite. Before that our data is so poor it's hard to distinguish between 1000 years and 1 year. [1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The%20Younger%20Dryas https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The%20Younge...

ThomPete 8y ago

2C is the popularized number. In reality it's a range (0.8-2.6 for 2050 and 1.4-1.4-5.8 for 2100) and it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have to do with it (we are probably affecting it but how much is still an open question) We have been figthing to survive nature from the start. Ex. sea rise is not a problem that can't be solved just look at Holland. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29

lozenge 8y ago
> it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have to do with it (we are probably affecting it but how much is still an open question) What is your point in saying this? Everything always has uncertainties, but scientists and economists are in agreement there is enough known that we need large changes in energy use (which affects all sectors of the economy). That is found in the latest version of the report you linked to, or even the version you linked. The idea that Bangladesh can "solve" sea level rise because Holland can is laughable. Just look at these maps: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-...
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Not sure there is any reason to debate someone who deliberately oversimplify what I say, call it laughable and then point to a highly biased website. Of course Holland and Bangladesh isn't the same situation so to call your own strawman laughable says a lot about where you are coming from in this. But against my better judgement I am still engaging in the hopes that you are in fact interested in hearing what my point is. Yes everything has uncertainties which would be good to remember in this debate as thats the difference between whether we are doomed or whether the climate will change as I has always done and we need to adjust to it. Instead of trying to claim that we know for a fact what the outcome is, how big our involvement in climate change is, how much we can do something about. Even the IPCC does not deal in such certainties and have toned down their doomsdaying over the years. That's important to keep in mind before we all jump on the "we are doomed" bandwagon. There are things we can do especially these days as we are much better at handling nature than we were 100 years ago which means that no matter how much of climate change is manmade we have a better chance of dealing with the consequences today than if those changes had happened 100 years ago.

akvadrako 8y ago

We don't know historical global temperatures well enough to say if anthropogenic warming is particularly fast. For example the Younger Dryas¹, about 15ky ago. The best estimate is global temp dropped 2-6° over 50 years and 1000 years later, did the opposite. Before that our data is so poor it's hard to distinguish between 1000 years and 1 year. [1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The%20Younger%20Dryas https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The%20Younge...