This is a fair point, but it still comes off as being alarmist relative to other well sourced and circulated studies on this stuff.
There is very limited discussion about things getting as bad as your saying. We haven't really been seeing governments really anywhere raise alarms for such a level of warming. Abet most assumptions that feedback cycles don't start until significantly worse levels of warming than what exist today.
Not much point in arguing about how bad the future will be but, I'd point out that people would have called our current situation alarmist in 1995.
Like, the alarmists have been consistently right, and maybe have even underestimated things.
The former worst case scenarios are what's happening. And the ways out of them assume a trajectory on climate action that is not happening, and essentially fictional technology like global mass carbon capture.
4 degrees by 2100 really seems like what we're heading for. The Trump admin might have been trolling, but their estimates say 7c.
The one area where I will say there is substantial unsubstantiated alarmism is around the issue of sea level rise which to me has raised some skepticism around other certain aspects of climate change in terms of how bad it could practically get. By the time there is major sea level rise, everything else would be so fucked it wouldn't matter.
No. It assumes that none of the feedback cycles have begun, which they almost certainly have.
6-12 degrees is the BAU scenario, and honestly unless we get to negative carbon by 2030 it looks like we're headed to 4 degrees minimum.
Source is depressing dinner conversations with pals at the Australian Board of Meteorology.
deleted by creator
Some say it's unethical, others point out the meta effects.
Children encourage longer term thinking, and educated ecologically aware children are going to be needed in the key crisis years.
deleted by creator
This is a fair point, but it still comes off as being alarmist relative to other well sourced and circulated studies on this stuff.
There is very limited discussion about things getting as bad as your saying. We haven't really been seeing governments really anywhere raise alarms for such a level of warming. Abet most assumptions that feedback cycles don't start until significantly worse levels of warming than what exist today.
Not much point in arguing about how bad the future will be but, I'd point out that people would have called our current situation alarmist in 1995.
Like, the alarmists have been consistently right, and maybe have even underestimated things.
The former worst case scenarios are what's happening. And the ways out of them assume a trajectory on climate action that is not happening, and essentially fictional technology like global mass carbon capture.
4 degrees by 2100 really seems like what we're heading for. The Trump admin might have been trolling, but their estimates say 7c.
The one area where I will say there is substantial unsubstantiated alarmism is around the issue of sea level rise which to me has raised some skepticism around other certain aspects of climate change in terms of how bad it could practically get. By the time there is major sea level rise, everything else would be so fucked it wouldn't matter.
deleted by creator
I thought 7°C would be insane, so I googled it, and found this article in the Washington post about it which says:
So you were right with the 4°C. It's just confusing that they use two different ways to measure it.