3 ms·

>We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expec

>We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expect it will just stop increasing when we hit that, although maybe it will. Happy to tell you that we aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#Projections_based_on_the_RCPs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... The 4-5celcius number you provide comes from the IPCC RCP8.5. Though would be more accurately represented at 2.5-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#RCP_8.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... As you can read there. This is a grossly overestimated projection that's worse than worse case scenario. With all current actions taken by humans on Earth to reduce emissions. We are currently on the RCP4.5 path. So more like an average of 1.8celcius increase. Which is great news, very little impact to our society. >Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there. Here's the graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot... As you can see there's quite the variation over the last 500 million years. For about 200 million years the Earth was 2-10 celcius warmer until that asteroid. Long story short, the climate change issue is far less problematic than you believe.

beowulfey 6y ago
If you don’t see the threat of an increase, and don’t understand why scientists are worried about it, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind about it. Even if it does end up being less of an issue, the risk of it being possibly bad for humans is enough reason for me to want to do something about it.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >If you don’t see the threat of an increase, and don’t understand why scientists are worried about it, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind about it. Even if it does end up being less of an issue, the risk of it being possibly bad for humans is enough reason for me to want to do something about it. The problem isn't the science. The science clearly is controversial and to date not confirmed. As my devils advocate posting, which only uses scientific positions, clearly explains is that people will attack this science and claim they are 'debunked' or 'just wrong' The problem is the politics. People who wish to push their ideology have usurped the climate change issue. They propose the only fix to climate change catastrophe is to completely accept their political positions. However, we science deniers haven't given them complete power for 30+ years and so they continue to overexagerate the threat. In 1989: https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 The united nation was pushing that it's too late by the year 2000. Their alarmism was wrong and they just kept restarting the number saying another 10 years in 2000. Now if you have seen AOC, we are back to about 10 years from complete disaster. It's the same old story over and over. The problem is that what if THIS TIME they were right? It's completely unbelievable now. Look at the people responding to me, they are all asserting that the 'current path' we are on is the IPCC RCP8.5. Which is wrong, the IPCC never asserted that was the expected path. They are outright misrepresenting the threat of climate change. Why are they doing this? Because they wish to take power and push their political ideology. If you are concerned about climate change risks, you must oppose these people who are abusing the climate change problem for their political gain.
  - approxim8ion 6y ago
    "Their political gain" would still likely bring about changes that would mitigate said "climate change risks".
  - beowulfey 6y ago
    So you're saying you feel they cried wolf before, and you'll never believe them again? Do you know what happens at the end of that fable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

beowulfey 6y ago

If you don’t see the threat of an increase, and don’t understand why scientists are worried about it, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind about it. Even if it does end up being less of an issue, the risk of it being possibly bad for humans is enough reason for me to want to do something about it.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>If you don’t see the threat of an increase, and don’t understand why scientists are worried about it, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind about it. Even if it does end up being less of an issue, the risk of it being possibly bad for humans is enough reason for me to want to do something about it. The problem isn't the science. The science clearly is controversial and to date not confirmed. As my devils advocate posting, which only uses scientific positions, clearly explains is that people will attack this science and claim they are 'debunked' or 'just wrong' The problem is the politics. People who wish to push their ideology have usurped the climate change issue. They propose the only fix to climate change catastrophe is to completely accept their political positions. However, we science deniers haven't given them complete power for 30+ years and so they continue to overexagerate the threat. In 1989: https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 The united nation was pushing that it's too late by the year 2000. Their alarmism was wrong and they just kept restarting the number saying another 10 years in 2000. Now if you have seen AOC, we are back to about 10 years from complete disaster. It's the same old story over and over. The problem is that what if THIS TIME they were right? It's completely unbelievable now. Look at the people responding to me, they are all asserting that the 'current path' we are on is the IPCC RCP8.5. Which is wrong, the IPCC never asserted that was the expected path. They are outright misrepresenting the threat of climate change. Why are they doing this? Because they wish to take power and push their political ideology. If you are concerned about climate change risks, you must oppose these people who are abusing the climate change problem for their political gain.
- approxim8ion 6y ago
  "Their political gain" would still likely bring about changes that would mitigate said "climate change risks".
- beowulfey 6y ago
  So you're saying you feel they cried wolf before, and you'll never believe them again? Do you know what happens at the end of that fable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf