3 ms·
They are happening faster than expected because IPCC reports have been sandbagging for decades. Which, TBH, is entirely rational not only for political, but als
by titzer 5y ago
They are happening faster than expected because IPCC reports have been sandbagging for decades. Which, TBH, is entirely rational not only for political, but also scientific, reasons.
I, for one, might be a doomer, but have no illusions about us meeting goals to keep warming under 1.5C, or even 2C for that matter, and it is going to happen "faster than expected".
- yesbut 5y agoWe should just sit back wait for solutions to climate change to become profitable enough for the owner-class to act. Nothing to worry about. I'm sure they will figure it out before it is too late. If only they had been made aware of this problem earlier. The market will solve this in no time.
- taurath 5y agoWe should just enshrine into law that we won’t bail them out this time
- jacquesm 5y agoYou won't have to, they'll be fine and you'll be gone.
- lisper 5y ago> I'm sure they will figure it out before it is too late. It's already too late.
- ffwszgf 5y agoIf it’s already too late we have no reason to worry about it anymore. Climate activists need to find a new job
- tejohnso 5y agoI think that's actually a rational position to take. We've already blown past 1.5 degrees C if you use the original 1750 baseline and 2 degrees C is already baked into the atmosphere. Short of some massively scaled up energy reflectance or capture / storage technology, implemented quickly, we're headed for extreme consequences. Note that we are already experiencing relatively mild consequences such as sudden human deaths in the dozens or hundreds, home loss, small species habitat loss, destruction of entire villages or small towns, etc. The mainstream is starting to accept attribution of these things to global warming now. Interestingly, before the IPCC was formed their precursor had set the magic number at 1.0 degrees C. Then IPCC set it to 1.5 degrees C. Then they moved the goalpost by changing the baseline from pre-industrial 1750 to 1900 (or maybe 1850). Personally, I'm not a fan of arbitrary numbers anyway. I prefer to look at significant events. For me, the big slap in the face will come when we see an ice free arctic ocean.
- foxes 5y agoMight need an /s on that.
- yesbut 5y agoPretty sad that a post like mine actually requires the /s around here. These people drinking too much Ayn Rand koolaid.
- vanusa 5y agoThey are happening faster than expected because IPCC reports have been sandbagging for decades. Could you elaborate + provide a few sources for this? I'm not doubting you -- I'm just curious about this assessment and would like to understand how you've come to it.
- perfunctory 5y agofwiw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Conservative_nature_of_IPCC_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...
- vanusa 5y agoGood catch, thanks