8 ms·
It's easy to conclude that the author of the article did their homework well, they should be lauded. The key questions are: - Assume 6 degrees increase by 210
by nuancebydefault 3y ago
It's easy to conclude that the author of the article did their homework well, they should be lauded.
The key questions are:
- Assume 6 degrees increase by 2100. (>10 percent probability) Assume mass famine and displacement of people. What would be the impact on population? 9 percent, 99 percent or 100 percent decrease? In fact there is nothing that could simulate these events. Compare it to covid, the figures went up exponentially and there was no single model that could simulate today's situation, just a few years later.
- What will be the state of technology in 2043? Impossible to predict, let alone in 2100. I believe science and technology is really the key factor determining our future.
- With mass death rates, how will the human genome respond? Quite impossible to predict (crf covid mutations/human immune system adaptation)
It is clear the climate situation is bad and getting worse (cfr covid times). But there is no model that can predict the state of human kind 20 years from now.
- Condition1952 3y agoOne billion death by the end of the century. The study does not hint to a reduction in world population, thought. >as a rough rule of thumb, burning roughly 1000 tons of fossil carbon (creating 3700 tons of CO2) causes one future premature death. Measuring carbon emissions in human lives not only makes the numbers easier to understand for nonexperts but also clarifies energy policy priorities: clearly, allowing a policy to cause manslaughter is intuitively unacceptable. The high death tolls that can be attributed to current carbon emissions and that follow from this analysis have immediate and direct energy policy implications. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074 https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074