5 ms·
Lands warm up more than oceans. We're already past 1.5°C of temperature rise and we probably won't do anything to prevent 2°C. Most probably, we'll hit +3-+4°C
by wazoox 8y ago
Lands warm up more than oceans. We're already past 1.5°C of temperature rise and we probably won't do anything to prevent 2°C. Most probably, we'll hit +3-+4°C in 2100. However even +2°C is a global average; oceans are cooler, and 75% of the surface. It can easily be +1°C on the oceans, and +5°C on land, averaging to +2°C.
The situation of complex systems such as climate, the world economy and global ecosystems doesn't simply gently degrade over time. There are quick, catastrophic changes that occur rapidly when reaching certain thresholds. So all could be mostly fine for 1 year, or 5, or 10, then collapse suddenly any time because we've gone through one particular threshold we don't know (ocean acidity, surface temperature, oxygen concentration, forests dying from the heat and becoming carbon sources, etc).
Prepare for a tough, violent future. Be scared to death.
- waplot 8y ago>Prepare for a tough, violent future. Be scared to death. This is exactly the type of fearmongering Science avoids.
- rosser 8y agoWhen the next local Gamma Ray Burst comes along, the planet will be sterilized. Am I also fearmongering?
- gdubs 8y agoScience helps us arrive closer and closer to the truth, through hypothesis, experimentation, review, and revision. So yes, by definition science isn't in the business of fear mongering. But that really has no bearing on whether or not people choose to be terrified by the facts uncovered by science.
- scythe 8y agoThe IPCC has indeed carefully avoided claims which may appear to be "fearmongering". However, a consequence of this is that they typically discuss the least severe warming scenarios in predictions of the effects of climate change. But the fact is that at current emissions, temperature anomalies of 3 C or more are likely within the next century. Barring large-scale geoengineering on a scale never before attempted, such an amount of warming would be utterly devastating to human civilization. Relevant historical comparisons include the Black Plague and the Spanish flu and not much else. Nine-figure death tolls are not off the menu.
- earthtolazlo 8y agoA nine-figure death toll seems optimistic, unfortunately.
- wazoox 8y agoI didn't pretend to present a scientific assessment of the situation. However I've been following closely the situation on energy (we are running out of it), other resources (phosphates, essential to industrial agriculture, metals, essential to any industry, particularly the hyped "green energies"), ecology, climate, for the past 15 years and the situation is dire.
- Intermernet 8y agoYou've been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Our models show, according to a majority of experts, that your quality of life will possibly be affected, with a consensus opinion that you may have a 10 to 20 year reduction in expected social interaction. Sometimes telling it how it is equates to good bedside manner.
- debacle 8y ago> Prepare for a tough, violent future. Be scared to death. Anyone with even moderate financial stability will be completely alright. I'm not sure which scenario would be so terrifying as to be scared to death.
- 14 8y agoDo you really think so? Take a man's water away for a few days and you will have riots. You think you will be safe behind your wooden doors when you have people outside ready to kill for it? I am a little concerned to be honest even if I can afford the initial hit of it all.
- debacle 8y agoPut another way, anyone who lives in a country with a per capita income >1000 USD will not be impacted in any severe way by global warming.
- misnome 8y agoYes, this is the sociopathic point of view. There are billions of people who don’t have “moderate financial stability”, sucks to be them I guess?
- debacle 8y agoIt's pragmatic. The most cost effective reaction to global warming is transplanting peoples. The maximal impact of global warming, from a cost perspective, will be a rounding error over the next 50 years.
- wazoox 8y agoGaël Giraud, chief economist of the national French agency for development, says that the only economic simulation that reliably tracked actual data for nearly 50 years is World3. He often says that usually, building a model predicting 18 months in the future is a sure way to get the Nobel, but this one is in a class of its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3 Here are some scientists' papers and opinions: https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-papers/is-global-collapse-imminent https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-pap... https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-growth/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-gro... https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2011/09/cassandra-and-limits-to-growth.html https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2011/09/cassandra-and-l...
- RikNieu 8y agoThis post reminds me of Deep Adaption theory by Professor Jem Bendell. https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/07/26/the-study-on-collapse-they-thought-you-should-not-read-yet/ https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/07/26/the-study-on-col...