5 ms·

Most science predicts warming of ~2* Celsius. That will definitely be disruptive, but it's not catastrophic. Remember this change is amortized over much of the

Most science predicts warming of ~2* Celsius. That will definitely be disruptive, but it's not catastrophic. Remember this change is amortized over much of the century. We should definitely be arriving towards decarbonization, but the reality is that there are other priorities. Climate change is a problem the world is facing, along with malaria, poverty, conflict and more. We absolutely should not prioritize getting to zero emissions above all else. Bombing coal plants in other countries would make great strides towards getting to zero emissions, but surely you agree that such efforts go too far.

jfim 6y ago
Keep in mind that that increase is a global average. Land tends to have larger increases in temperature than the average, while oceans and water surfaces have a smaller increase in temperature[0]. What may be an average of two degrees Celsius might be four or five on land and one and a half on water. [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up-faster-than-the-oceans https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up...
sergeykish 6y ago
Science predicts 2°C if world acted at least ten years ago. > Current climate policies: projected warming of 2.8 to 3.2°C by 2100 based on current implemented climate policies; > No climate policies: projected future emissions if no climate policies were implemented; this would result in an estimated 4.1 to 4.8°C warming by 2100 https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions
- adrianN 6y ago
  And climate models generally don't yet take into account tipping points, so they are most likely conservative in their estimates.
- manfredo 6y ago
  Right, and ~3 degrees of warming if we continue with current energy policies for the next 80 years is much more benign than what many are claiming. It's not uncommon for people to claim that carbon emissions need to be reduced to zero in the next twelve years or the earth will become uninhabitable. If that were true then yes, we should start bombing fossil fuel plants. But in reality the damage causes by such action would be far more damaging than climate change.
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    That's actually a lot, it is 3 times weirder that today. Countries claim carbon emissions have to be reduced to zero [1]. I do not think Eco terrorism would work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

jfim 6y ago

Keep in mind that that increase is a global average. Land tends to have larger increases in temperature than the average, while oceans and water surfaces have a smaller increase in temperature[0]. What may be an average of two degrees Celsius might be four or five on land and one and a half on water. [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up-faster-than-the-oceans https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up...

sergeykish 6y ago

Science predicts 2°C if world acted at least ten years ago. > Current climate policies: projected warming of 2.8 to 3.2°C by 2100 based on current implemented climate policies; > No climate policies: projected future emissions if no climate policies were implemented; this would result in an estimated 4.1 to 4.8°C warming by 2100 https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions

adrianN 6y ago
And climate models generally don't yet take into account tipping points, so they are most likely conservative in their estimates.
manfredo 6y ago
Right, and ~3 degrees of warming if we continue with current energy policies for the next 80 years is much more benign than what many are claiming. It's not uncommon for people to claim that carbon emissions need to be reduced to zero in the next twelve years or the earth will become uninhabitable. If that were true then yes, we should start bombing fossil fuel plants. But in reality the damage causes by such action would be far more damaging than climate change.
- sergeykish 6y ago
  That's actually a lot, it is 3 times weirder that today. Countries claim carbon emissions have to be reduced to zero [1]. I do not think Eco terrorism would work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality