4 ms·
To be fair, there is an endless list of "things" that could make the climate predictions not come through (e.g., big impact or super volcano). So in a broader s
by RandomLensman 5y ago
To be fair, there is an endless list of "things" that could make the climate predictions not come through (e.g., big impact or super volcano). So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate.
We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).
- esarbe 5y ago> So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate. I'm not really sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, if you're just trolling or if that's a serious argument. I'll try to treat it as a serious argument, just to be sure. Sure, there are tons and tons of failure modes that are not included in the models. Galactic gamma ray bursts! Rogue black holes throwing the Earth out of orbit! Alien invasion (probably not)! The question is if they are relevant in the topic of modeling the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere - and the answer is: no. So, while philosophically your statement is true that "we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate" - you still get out of bed in the morning and go to work, not wasting any (much?) time thinking about that gamma ray burst coming our way. > We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure). The IPCC has several modes of mitigation that model possible scenarios. That's covered.
- RandomLensman 5y agoYes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not. The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.
- esarbe 5y agoIf it really comes to the point where geoengineering becomes a serious consideration we are - in my opinion - already royally fucked sideways. If we cannot even agree on simply cutting fossil fuels, how on earth can we ever agree on large scale geoengineering projects that will have massive negative consequences for many countries involved?
- RandomLensman 5y agoBecause there is no agreement needed - those who can do might just do.
- esarbe 5y agoSo, it's war, then?
- RandomLensman 5y agoI don't see why it would be. Just as it is not war now with respect to pollution and might also not be in the future. Before it is being cited: of course, the defense establishment sees risks of war everywhere, including climate - but that is their business.
- esarbe 5y agoThere are already existing tensions and conflicts about resources like water. Some of these do not need much more pushing to escalate into war[0]. Further climatic disruptions will make the already dire situations in many countries untenable. That situations like that do not tend to improve by unilateral actions of their neighbors if the threaten to make a barely acceptable situation even worse. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-uncomfortably-close-n9bjctvgn https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-un...
- inkywatcher 5y agoWhat do you suppose will happen when hundreds of millions of people find that their local geography no longer supports human habitation? They will be welcomed into neighboring regions with open arms?