4 ms·

Hmm for some reason the webpage loaded as a blank page first time. "Guess no good news" RCP 8.5 was never expected to happen. It was a prediction based the ent

Hmm for some reason the webpage loaded as a blank page first time. "Guess no good news" RCP 8.5 was never expected to happen. It was a prediction based the entire world doing nothing at all, banning things like green tech, and increasing fossil fuel use AND even the introduction of new techs to increase the amount of available fossil fuel reserves. Afterall we only have ~50 years left anyway. To get to 8.5 we would need to expand upon this significantly. RCP 7 was kind of status quo, which isn't even possible because Tesla is worth a trillion $. RCP 6 is we kind of half-assed it and we never properly reduce anything, no new techs etc. This one is possible but given political climate I see this as practically impossible. RCP 4.5 is highly likely. We have until 2045 or so until we peak. I see this happening, China has many coal power plants in construction right now. They wont be reducing. Much of the world wont be. Though around this 2045 date is when fossil fuels start increasing in price quite significantly just because of supply/demand. The cost to go non-fossil fuel will simply make more sense before this. So those coal plants in construction now, mainly by china, will be getting shut off then. The rise in temps will be roughly 2 celcius and that's completely manageable by our society. Especially given decades to respond. There are arguments that features like greenification is actually a good thing and not a bad thing. Therefore 4.5 is actually unlikely. RCP 3.4 is where it's all at. It's literally the line we are tracking already with everything we have done. It's slightly less than 2 celcius in increase. There's no major need to declare war on china and blow up their fossil fuel operations.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
algo_trader 5y ago
We got very, very lucky with several factors Population stabilized faster than expected. Gas as a bridge fuel. Marine, solar thermal, geo-thermal, new nuclear did not hit the exponential curve. Luckily PV, wind and Li-Ion did. The world is relatively sane and peaceful. A US/USSR world would have been more difficult. Interest rates can easily crush renewables even today Etc, etc
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >We got very, very lucky with several factors Not at all. You look at pages like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... RCP8.5 is the only RCP listed on the graph with no context that it was never expected to ever happen. They did this because they are wrongfully blowing the issue out of proportion. A clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. There's also this 'greening' factor. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wild... In the entire article the global greening and anti-desertification is simply not mentioned. This is because they are biased. Another clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. We're on the fourth prediction of the end of the world, they keep saying we have ~10 years left and when their time runs out they just predict it again. Their unscientific bias is clear. You must account for the unscientific bias and then climate change is far less of a concern and we weren't 'lucky'. There's a concerted effort to blow it out of proportion for political reasons.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

algo_trader 5y ago

We got very, very lucky with several factors Population stabilized faster than expected. Gas as a bridge fuel. Marine, solar thermal, geo-thermal, new nuclear did not hit the exponential curve. Luckily PV, wind and Li-Ion did. The world is relatively sane and peaceful. A US/USSR world would have been more difficult. Interest rates can easily crush renewables even today Etc, etc

sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>We got very, very lucky with several factors Not at all. You look at pages like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... RCP8.5 is the only RCP listed on the graph with no context that it was never expected to ever happen. They did this because they are wrongfully blowing the issue out of proportion. A clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. There's also this 'greening' factor. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wild... In the entire article the global greening and anti-desertification is simply not mentioned. This is because they are biased. Another clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. We're on the fourth prediction of the end of the world, they keep saying we have ~10 years left and when their time runs out they just predict it again. Their unscientific bias is clear. You must account for the unscientific bias and then climate change is far less of a concern and we weren't 'lucky'. There's a concerted effort to blow it out of proportion for political reasons.