The following mathematical statement is obviously false: if f and g are two non-negative integrable real-valued functions defined on the interval [0,t] such that f(t)=g(t)=0, then their integrals are equal. But many discussions of climate change seem to assume it is true. 1/
-
Show this thread
-
This should be called out. The statement that if we reduce emissions to zero by 2050 then we'll avoid 2 degrees of warming is dangerous nonsense: it encourages the attitude that we can make a token effort now and not start properly worrying till about 2040. 2/
4 replies 8 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
If the graph of emissions versus time begins by decreasing rapidly before levelling out, that is *much* better than if it stays flattish (or even increases) before a steep drop towards the end. I wish that instead of talking about when we hope to reach net zero, 3/
1 reply 5 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
we talked about an "emissions half life": for instance, we could have a policy that our emissions will halve every decade, say. That would get rid of the feeling that we don't have to worry about the targets just yet, and we would end up emitting much less CO2. 4/4
5 replies 11 retweets 62 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @wtgowers
Is it not praiseworthy, then, that Greta Thunberg often speaks in terms of a total number of gigatons of carbon that we may emit before dooming ourselves finally and utterly? It seems to me that she does in fact appreciate your initial point, and seeks to stress it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps
It is. I would also be very happy if my government put a limit on total future emissions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wtgowers
Do you not consider it appallingly likely that we will eventually attempt a geoengineering solution to our climate change problems -- and fail at it catastrophically?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MathPrinceps
Unfortunately a lot of very bad outcomes are uncomfortably likely. I'm not against geoengineering in principle, and would advocate limited experiments now so that we don't do much larger-scale experiments in a big hurry later.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In principle, geoengineering might provide the most elegant possible solution, and I agree that we are far more likely to succeed by experimenting on small scales now, before attempting anything irreversible on a grand scale later. But we seem to be a species of procrastinators.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.