4 ms·
"The worst-case scenario of 6.5-7.0°C of warming assumed continued economic expansion driven by growth of fossil fuel production" I assume this means "doing no
by lexpar 7y ago
"The worst-case scenario of 6.5-7.0°C of warming assumed continued economic expansion driven by growth of fossil fuel production"
I assume this means "doing nothing, all future growth based on burning coal", which hopefully is a lot less likely than the headline makes it sound.
- 4ec0755f5522 7y agoDon't worry, there are enough runaway feedback loops we will all be dead by then. No one can turn this ship around fast enough; the planet will do it for us.
- manfredo 7y agoEven the most pessimistic models do not predict human extinction. Life existed on earth before the carboniferous period, and will exist even if atmospheric carbon goes back to pre-carboniferous levels. There will certainly be drastic changes in the environment that reduce arable land, cause water shortages, and other negative effects if this happens and thus it's a good idea to decarbonize energy production. But this hyperbolic narrative of extinction is counterproductive, and makes people question whether proponents of decarbonization are really making an effective judgement around the tradeoff of energy cost and carbon emissions.
- Jare 7y agoI do not believe that all nuclear stockpiles will remain untouched during this not-extinction-but-close-enough. And after the first nukes fly, who knows how many more will follow.
- Roboprog 7y agoI believe it was about 4 degrees C warmer than now two interglacial periods ago Most critters got through it, even hominids. The opportunity is slowing global warming down enough to match the upcoming ice age, not too soon, not too late.