Over the last 30 years, the world as a whole has done little to nothing to bend those curves downward. In fact, last year we added carbon to the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. Every year is worse than the last.
-
Show this thread
-
Writing about worst-case scenarios is useful (I've even done it: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html …). But 4C is not a worst-case; it is where we are headed.
4 replies 54 retweets 98 likesShow this thread -
The upper-end of the UN's bell curve of possibilities puts the planet at 8C warmer by the end of the century—a worst-case outcome of a do-nothing carbon trajectory.
1 reply 20 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
4C may seem unthinkable, with such horrifying impacts we would like to believe the chances are vanishingly slim we get there. But while I think we will avoid that amount of warming, it is far from a worst case.
3 replies 19 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
That we often think of it that way is a reflection of just how tilted toward best-case and even beyond-bast-case most scientific research has been over the last few decades, when we did little in response.
1 reply 10 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
Which is why, at this point, unfortunately, our likeliest outcomes are actually quite catastrophic, and catastrophic outcomes actually quite likely. (x/x)
8 replies 24 retweets 66 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @dwallacewells @KelseyTuoc
David, I agree with just about everything you wrote in this thread (even retweeting 3 of your points). But I take major issue and strongly disagree with your framing of "likeliest outcomes."
@AlexSteffen has a pointed thread on this:2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
I agree it’s a bit foolish to make particular predictions—so much about human response is uncertain. By “likely outcomes” I just mean the range of scenarios that lie between 2C (which I take to be roughly best-case) and 4C (where our current path takes us by 2100).
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
I agree that the consensus on 'currently likely' outcomes is something like 2.0º-4ºC. My point is that pundits often use past trendlines as evidence to predict we won't act, when we're in a discontinuity in which history is a poor guide, and climate politics is in wild flux.
3 replies 5 retweets 12 likes -
But as all of us know the difference between 2.0º-4ºC is... virtually incomprehensible in the amount of death and devastation it would cause. Seems incredibly unwise to lump everything between 2.0º-4ºC as "likely." Possible? Absolutely. We can't predict "likely" so why use it?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
To underscore, I do think we need to grabble with the real possibility of catastrophic scenarios and face that WITHOUT ACTION they are all but guaranteed. But because we're dealing with non-linear complex systems, the amount of devastation is neither guaranteed or "likely."
-
-
Replying to @emahlee @AlexSteffen and
folks, this is a great discussion. thank you all so much for listening and building on each other, i’ve learned a lot.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.