5 ms·

And we have 10 to 20 years before effects from current emissions are felt: https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-time-lag-of-climate-change/ https://earth.or

And we have 10 to 20 years before effects from current emissions are felt: https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-time-lag-of-climate-change/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-time-lag-of-climate... As COVID-19 showed us, humans aren't great at dealing with delayed effects.

jfengel 3y ago
Especially when we really, really don't want to.
- userinanother 3y ago
  Tropical storms are not airborne. Continue washing your hands
  - xattt 3y ago
    I’ll still use N95 umbrellas as a layer of precaution.
hedora 3y ago
Back around 1980, they had already forecast the CO2 emissions curve we are on (we are tracking their best guess scenario) and the economic impact. We’re currently approaching the regional disasters stage. They thought we’d hit 2.5C warming by either 2038 or 2025, which will be enough to halt global economic growth. We seem to be on the 2038 curve. That curve has us hitting 5C by 2069, with globally catastrophic impacts. The document I’m referring to is here: https://download.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/g/f/f/l/gffl0228/gffl0228.pdf https://download.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/g/f/f/l/gffl0228... It is a set of AQ-9 climate task force minutes. In the end, they conclude: —— AT A 3% PER ANNUM GROWTH RATE OF C02, A 2.5°C RISE BRINGS 2 WORLD ECONOMIC GROWTH TO A HALT IN ABOUT 2025. Even If this estimate is grossly wrong it Is still probable that • WHETHER THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE THREAT DEPENDS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE LONG MARKET PENETRATION TIME CONCEPT. • EVEN IF THE LATTER IS APPLICABLE, PRESENT DAY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IMPACT DEPENDS STRONGLY ON CHOICE OF A FUTURE DISCOUNTING FACTOR. • NEED FOR IMMEDIATE POLICY ACTION HINGES ON THESE LAST TWO FEATURES. —- The document also says that back in 1980, there was no leeway to wait to take action to mitigate climate change. Instead, they ended up spending unprecedented amounts of money on disinformation campaigns and in support of climate change denying politicians in the 1990s and afterwards to prevent action from being taken. I guess their discount factor valued their grandchildren at ~ $0.

jfengel 3y ago

Especially when we really, really don't want to.

userinanother 3y ago
Tropical storms are not airborne. Continue washing your hands
- xattt 3y ago
  I’ll still use N95 umbrellas as a layer of precaution.

hedora 3y ago

Back around 1980, they had already forecast the CO2 emissions curve we are on (we are tracking their best guess scenario) and the economic impact. We’re currently approaching the regional disasters stage. They thought we’d hit 2.5C warming by either 2038 or 2025, which will be enough to halt global economic growth. We seem to be on the 2038 curve. That curve has us hitting 5C by 2069, with globally catastrophic impacts. The document I’m referring to is here: https://download.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/g/f/f/l/gffl0228/gffl0228.pdf https://download.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/g/f/f/l/gffl0228... It is a set of AQ-9 climate task force minutes. In the end, they conclude: —— AT A 3% PER ANNUM GROWTH RATE OF C02, A 2.5°C RISE BRINGS 2 WORLD ECONOMIC GROWTH TO A HALT IN ABOUT 2025. Even If this estimate is grossly wrong it Is still probable that • WHETHER THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE THREAT DEPENDS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE LONG MARKET PENETRATION TIME CONCEPT. • EVEN IF THE LATTER IS APPLICABLE, PRESENT DAY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IMPACT DEPENDS STRONGLY ON CHOICE OF A FUTURE DISCOUNTING FACTOR. • NEED FOR IMMEDIATE POLICY ACTION HINGES ON THESE LAST TWO FEATURES. —- The document also says that back in 1980, there was no leeway to wait to take action to mitigate climate change. Instead, they ended up spending unprecedented amounts of money on disinformation campaigns and in support of climate change denying politicians in the 1990s and afterwards to prevent action from being taken. I guess their discount factor valued their grandchildren at ~ $0.