4 ms·

>I dunno, how did we establish which countries have to reduce greenhouse emissions the most? You will be frightened how we did that. Canada for example is net-

>I dunno, how did we establish which countries have to reduce greenhouse emissions the most? You will be frightened how we did that. Canada for example is net-positive and effectively doesn't have to do anything. Not surprising given we have a gigantic boreal forest that stretches across the country. We have almost 10,000 trees per person. So then why do we show up in top 10 worst countries? Our trees don't count, they are considered against us. >When it comes to population regulation it's via reproduction policies that educate women and offer them job opportunities and incentivize them to have sustainable family sizes. Well, the 'climate clock' has only 8 years left before DEADline. Education and reproductive policies like only allowing 1 child won't work. We have to obviously do far more to reduce the world population by more than half. What do you think we should do?

goatlover 5y ago
> Well, the 'climate clock' has only 8 years left before DEADline. What DEADline? You mean to keep warming below 1.5°C? Do you suppose if we go ver by .1°, we all die? That's not how it works. It's better to limit warming, but there's no magic cutoff in which we all die. It's on a continuum, with more warming meaning the increase in the likelihood of extreme events and disruption. Also at some point, increase in the possibility of positive feedback, but that's likely above or near the maximum projected warming range 2.7°-4°C, and it's still a matter of degree. The IPCC report does not say we all die in the current projected warming range, or that civilization collapses.
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >What DEADline? You mean to keep warming below 1.5°C? Do you suppose if we go ver by .1°, we all die? I will admit, I looked through the site to find if they are doomsaying like AOC. >It's better to limit warming, but there's no magic cutoff in which we all die. In the last 20,000 years or so the world warmed up 6 celcius without human input. This has been a great thing for our species, basically enabling us to create civilization. Another 1.5c will be good for us. It will unlock tons of landmass. >It's on a continuum, with more warming meaning the increase in the likelihood of extreme events and disruption. The hypothesis that say atlantic hurricanes are worse because of climate change does not match the data. It's a good guess because more energy can theoretically be put into the hurricane but that's kind of debunked now. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/could-climate-change-make-atlantic-hurricanes-worse https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/could-clima... Little bit of a backpedal. Sure, rising seas might cause some problems for rich folks who built too close to the coast. I have no pity for them. >Also at some point, increase in the possibility of positive feedback, but that's likely above or near the maximum projected warming range 2.7°-4°C, and it's still a matter of degree. Also great news. There are a number of projections 1.9, 2.6, 3.4, 4.5, 6,7,and 8.5. All the predictions of doom is as if we are following the 8.5 path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... Note how this biased graph only shows IPCC 8.5. Here's a copy and paste. RCP8.5, generally taken as the basis for worst-case climate change scenarios, was based on what proved to be overestimation of projected coal outputs. 8.5 is not happening. It's looking like all the efforts humanity is making is placing us somewhere around 3. Afterall, above 4.5 is that we basically do nothing. CO2 peaks in around 2045 and life goes on. Even more interestingly, the climate clock is RCP 1.9. The only way we achieve the climate clock goal is that all fossil fuels end worldwide in the next ~7 years. That's not going to happen.

goatlover 5y ago

> Well, the 'climate clock' has only 8 years left before DEADline. What DEADline? You mean to keep warming below 1.5°C? Do you suppose if we go ver by .1°, we all die? That's not how it works. It's better to limit warming, but there's no magic cutoff in which we all die. It's on a continuum, with more warming meaning the increase in the likelihood of extreme events and disruption. Also at some point, increase in the possibility of positive feedback, but that's likely above or near the maximum projected warming range 2.7°-4°C, and it's still a matter of degree. The IPCC report does not say we all die in the current projected warming range, or that civilization collapses.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>What DEADline? You mean to keep warming below 1.5°C? Do you suppose if we go ver by .1°, we all die? I will admit, I looked through the site to find if they are doomsaying like AOC. >It's better to limit warming, but there's no magic cutoff in which we all die. In the last 20,000 years or so the world warmed up 6 celcius without human input. This has been a great thing for our species, basically enabling us to create civilization. Another 1.5c will be good for us. It will unlock tons of landmass. >It's on a continuum, with more warming meaning the increase in the likelihood of extreme events and disruption. The hypothesis that say atlantic hurricanes are worse because of climate change does not match the data. It's a good guess because more energy can theoretically be put into the hurricane but that's kind of debunked now. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/could-climate-change-make-atlantic-hurricanes-worse https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/could-clima... Little bit of a backpedal. Sure, rising seas might cause some problems for rich folks who built too close to the coast. I have no pity for them. >Also at some point, increase in the possibility of positive feedback, but that's likely above or near the maximum projected warming range 2.7°-4°C, and it's still a matter of degree. Also great news. There are a number of projections 1.9, 2.6, 3.4, 4.5, 6,7,and 8.5. All the predictions of doom is as if we are following the 8.5 path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... Note how this biased graph only shows IPCC 8.5. Here's a copy and paste. RCP8.5, generally taken as the basis for worst-case climate change scenarios, was based on what proved to be overestimation of projected coal outputs. 8.5 is not happening. It's looking like all the efforts humanity is making is placing us somewhere around 3. Afterall, above 4.5 is that we basically do nothing. CO2 peaks in around 2045 and life goes on. Even more interestingly, the climate clock is RCP 1.9. The only way we achieve the climate clock goal is that all fossil fuels end worldwide in the next ~7 years. That's not going to happen.