The state of #ClimateChange debate: -"You seem to have a distorted view of what human caused climate change will result in. Here, please re-read the latest IPCC report WG2 - I'll link it for you:" -"The IPCC reports have provably underestimated the catastrophy this whole time and cannot be […]
Hi @glenpeters.bsky.social, I was hoping to check my understanding of table 3.2 in IPCC AR6 WGIII. Is the number in the rounded brackets in these columns just the % of pathways that meet the condition in 2020–2100? I can't see any other plausible meaning, but wanted to double-check. Thanks!
the thing that irks me is the number of people who seem to believe that there's any actual realistic "humanity destroys itself" scenario here. The IPCC reports don't support such a position. Just "if we don't do something, things will be much worse than if we DO do something."
Feasibility & Cost of 31 climate responses Chart by IPCC scientists ✔️Feasibility to cut 0-5 Gt CO2e 🔲🔲🔲🔲🔲 ✔️Budget 🟦gain Revenue 🟨$20/ 🟥 $50/Gt cut & still cheaper than disasters 🥵🏜️🌪️🌊 ☑️Let’s do: 4Gt Solar 4Gt Wind 4Gt protect ecosystems 4Gt Ag holds Carbon 3Gt reforest 2Gt fuel switching 👇
The “how bad will climate change be?” debate often is depicted as the IPCC report versus the predictions of some PhD dropout at some Koch-orbit think tank, and ignores the hardcore alarmists predicting just absolutely inescapable human misery.
The domain is not random, but let me tell you that there are a lot of outdated pages out there (notice they cite a 14-y old paper). Andrew was citing the latest IPCC report. I gave you the direct link. Good luck!
Surely the NOAA, a US government agency headed by Biden-appointed scientist with a PhD in Oceanography, isn’t “a random website”? Here’s a NOAA survey of the topic updated this year. I’ll check out the IPCC link www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmi...