4 ms·

Have you read the article? It talks about what will happen in 100 years and what, based on the data we currently have, is inevitable if we don't take drastic ch

Have you read the article? It talks about what will happen in 100 years and what, based on the data we currently have, is inevitable if we don't take drastic changes (which is unlikely to happen until it's way too late).

ThomPete 9y ago
The data we currently have predicts between 1.4-5.8 and is based on estimates of global population between 7-15 billion people. Thats the official data and it's not as certain as many would like to make it. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29
- lozenge 9y ago
  Your range of 1.4C would involve drastic changes - the report mentions this as "including all SRES".
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Not "we're doomed" changes.
    - lozenge 9y ago
      No, I meant that the estimate of 1.4C is the lower end of temperatures given drastic changes to emissions are made - and since your link is from ten years ago, I can already tell you those drastic changes were not made.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Neither did the temperature changes they thought would happen, happen in fact the never reports tone down the temperature not up.
        lozenge 9y ago
        They never claimed to be able to predict the temperature for a particular decade.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        No but you and others speak of it as if they did. That's the point and was what I was saying. So claiming there is a certain temperature thats relevant instead of the truth which is there is a range of potential temperatures some of them not as problematic is the right way to think about the problem.
hutzlibu 9y ago
I skimmed it. And the main point I took is the one I cited: that people should first all acknowledge doom in order to do something against it. Which I think is stupid and achieve rather the opposite. Either by people starting to ignore doomsday-people and their "climate hoax" or by giving up hope and therefore truly making way for the stupid, careless people. It is a difference between saying "we are doomed". Or "if we continue this, we are doomed".
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  The whole point of the article is that we're past the return point, i.e. even if we stopped burning fossil fuels completely now, the temperatures will continue to rise albeit more slowly, so the critical point would be reached later.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    Bu even have in the worst case scenarios we are not doomed. Under heavy pressure and possible temporary decline, yes, but doom means extinction to me and this I don't believe. Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years. I bet we could live allmost sustainable on mars by then. And no matter how devastated the earth will be a some point, it will allways be easier to live here. Even if the whole food supply comes from sealed greenhouses. Those we can (and do) build. As long as the sun shines, I see no problem. (And even if the sun don't shine for some years, we could survive. Related: I will start playing Frostpunk tonight..same topic, even though in the scenario they survive by coal, while I would bet on nuclear)
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years." On the whole, our technological advances over the past 100 years have increased the rate of unsustainable energy use, despite widespread awareness of climate change for over half of that. What makes you think the technological advances of the next 100 years are going to be led responsibility? The truth is that there are very few people currently making a positive difference, and if we reach a point where climate change starts becoming inconvenient it'll already be too late.
thesz 9y ago
Mendeleev, of the periodic table of elements fame, used to write that cities will be ridden with the manure in 100 years and will be hard to live in. He also used to compare burning coal to burning paper money. It is the same Mendeleev who was able to figure out explosives and alloy compositions out of the railroad traffic to the factories which produced these explosives and alloys. So I think you can be sure that Mendeleev was able to use data he had pretty efficiently. The drastic changes you mention will be not so drastic after all and, I think, will be surprising to all of us if we see them today.

ThomPete 9y ago

The data we currently have predicts between 1.4-5.8 and is based on estimates of global population between 7-15 billion people. Thats the official data and it's not as certain as many would like to make it. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29

lozenge 9y ago
Your range of 1.4C would involve drastic changes - the report mentions this as "including all SRES".
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Not "we're doomed" changes.
  - lozenge 9y ago
    No, I meant that the estimate of 1.4C is the lower end of temperatures given drastic changes to emissions are made - and since your link is from ten years ago, I can already tell you those drastic changes were not made.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Neither did the temperature changes they thought would happen, happen in fact the never reports tone down the temperature not up.
      - lozenge 9y ago
        They never claimed to be able to predict the temperature for a particular decade.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        No but you and others speak of it as if they did. That's the point and was what I was saying. So claiming there is a certain temperature thats relevant instead of the truth which is there is a range of potential temperatures some of them not as problematic is the right way to think about the problem.

hutzlibu 9y ago

I skimmed it. And the main point I took is the one I cited: that people should first all acknowledge doom in order to do something against it. Which I think is stupid and achieve rather the opposite. Either by people starting to ignore doomsday-people and their "climate hoax" or by giving up hope and therefore truly making way for the stupid, careless people. It is a difference between saying "we are doomed". Or "if we continue this, we are doomed".

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
The whole point of the article is that we're past the return point, i.e. even if we stopped burning fossil fuels completely now, the temperatures will continue to rise albeit more slowly, so the critical point would be reached later.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Bu even have in the worst case scenarios we are not doomed. Under heavy pressure and possible temporary decline, yes, but doom means extinction to me and this I don't believe. Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years. I bet we could live allmost sustainable on mars by then. And no matter how devastated the earth will be a some point, it will allways be easier to live here. Even if the whole food supply comes from sealed greenhouses. Those we can (and do) build. As long as the sun shines, I see no problem. (And even if the sun don't shine for some years, we could survive. Related: I will start playing Frostpunk tonight..same topic, even though in the scenario they survive by coal, while I would bet on nuclear)
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years." On the whole, our technological advances over the past 100 years have increased the rate of unsustainable energy use, despite widespread awareness of climate change for over half of that. What makes you think the technological advances of the next 100 years are going to be led responsibility? The truth is that there are very few people currently making a positive difference, and if we reach a point where climate change starts becoming inconvenient it'll already be too late.

thesz 9y ago

Mendeleev, of the periodic table of elements fame, used to write that cities will be ridden with the manure in 100 years and will be hard to live in. He also used to compare burning coal to burning paper money. It is the same Mendeleev who was able to figure out explosives and alloy compositions out of the railroad traffic to the factories which produced these explosives and alloys. So I think you can be sure that Mendeleev was able to use data he had pretty efficiently. The drastic changes you mention will be not so drastic after all and, I think, will be surprising to all of us if we see them today.