See that Irish examiner article is a great example.
Long term, the Hothouse Earth climate will stabilise at a global average of 4C-5C above pre-industrial levels, the study shows
Previous research has shown that an increase in the mean global temperature of 11-12C would make more than half of the land area currently occupied by humans uninhabitable
Are we supposed to ignore the first part and assume the second part will happen so we’re scared to death?
No it isn’t. You obviously haven’t read and understood it. At least read the SPM for WG1, or the 1.5C impact report if you want to have a serious conversation about it. At this point, with your digressions about how comfortable we might be at various wet-bulb temperatures, I frankly don’t think you even understand what the term “global warming” means.
Where do you get this total bullshit?
You don’t get it because that argument usually comes from contrarian and denier sources.
1.5c impact report chapter 1;
od. Unless otherwise
specified, warming is expressed relative to the period 1850–1900,
used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in AR5.
Apparently you didn’t read it .
Here’s the global temp record , you’ll note 1750 was about .7-.8 below 1850
And here’s the global temp average record for 800k years, you’ll note about 120k years ago it was +8c compared to now
Here’s NASAs co2 record, 120k years ago we’re at 280-290ppm.
So why at at an astronomical high of 411 are we only seeing .8c change when 280 was enough for 8c ?
What besides co2 made that massive spike 120kya? This wasn’t millions of ya
Or what is offsetting the co2 effect now?
Seems like we are missing a critical factor that isn’t being discussed, which is kinda scary.
I still remember when talking about 4 degrees of increase was seen as very, very bad; so we should avoid it. The study you refer early is not really optimistic at all.
That 11-12C is by a study looking at the worst case scenarios.
We should still be worry of it because uncertainty is not your friend. Even with progress seen, there is a lot of foot dragging going on and politicians that have their heads in the sand. So the gamble you are talking about then is between rising oceans, desertification in regions, an increase in intensity of precipitation in others, acidification of the oceans vs more of the the same with warmer areas becoming uninhabitable included.
Is it the co2 rose so quickly that oceans are tempering it’s effect and there’s just a lag?
That seems like worst case to me, like woah, panic is kinda justified about co2 in that case.
You are then ignoring the issue of lag, this is why there is talk now about being too late now to stop some effects of global warming but we should prevent the worse results from coming.
Back then the main warming factor was the wobble of the earth.
Where is this mysterious global temp record? You didn’t post a link. No record supporting such a ridiculous claim exists in the peer-reviewed literature.
The ice age variations over > 1 million years have always been between a low of about 180 ppm to a high of around 290 - 300 ppm. It should be deeply concerning to everyone with a stake in life on earth that we are now exceeding 400 ppm for the first time in human history. The tight boundaries of CO2 variations are an immensely important indicator of how far out of whack we currently are from the norm to which our entire ecosystem is adapted. Peak temperatures in previous interglacials are indicative only of the obviously radically different surface conditions at each interglacial hundreds of thousands of years apart, and also the different orbital conditions at those times such as the obliquity and precession phases of the Milankovich cycles. Would you expect all these conditions to be exactly the same hundreds of thousands of years ago as they are today? The better question is what’s happened in the past 50-100 years of post-industrialization to cause such a sudden temperature spike. And since we know how GHGs affect the earth’s energy budget, we have the answer. You seem to have a problem with that. Scientists don’t.
Lag makes sense. Looking at the charts and just temps and co2 it would seem like nothing short of reversal could stop it from going through the roof but I’m guessing these 4c 5c predictions are more accurate with all else factored in …
What’s that supposed to prove? That’s just a textbook classic temperature reconstruction, and in fact it’s the exact same one I already posted here and that I’ve been posting for years in these discussions. It does not in any way prove your claim.
Here is a clearer graph reconstructed from sedimentary data. Both this graph and averaged smoothed data from multiproxy reconstructions like the previous one from Wikipedia bear out the statement in the text that “annual average summer temperature proves to be a few tenths of a degree lower during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age in the late 1500s and early 1600s” than in the preceding or following periods. Moreover, the LIA may not have been completely global in scope, and what there was of it was likely due to some combination of solar variations (the Maunder minimum occurred around that time) and volcanic eruptions. Neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the Little Ice Age provide a credible argument against the much larger, more rapid, and truly global post-industrial anthropogenic warming; it’s a tired old denialist argument.
And again, while 11c is less likely, you are talking about the difference between one suicidal guy out there shooting himself in the head and that suicidal guy shooting close to the heart. He can have a chance at that very ugly scenario -of 4c or 5c (many other issues still will harm most humans in that scenario, leaving WBT out)-, but knowing what he was up to , it should be better to intervene sooner and help that guy get over his path to self destruction.
This is a very strange argument. Just a few years ago, a 2C rise was deemed most likely and caused every major scientific group in the world to issue pronouncements that we had to start working to mitigate the crisis immediately. A 4C rise was a worst case scenario and naysayers criticized scientists for daring to hint that it might come true, accusing them of scaremongering.
Now it’s a 4C rise that seems likely and you are perfectly fine with it. There is a worse case scenario on the table and what do you do? You criticize scientists for daring to hint that it might come true, accusing them of scaremongering.
We keep blowing by likely and waving bye-bye to worst cases and your reaction is that since the next biggest worst case hasn’t hit yet, it’s all a bunch of nonsense. You’re standing on tiptoes in a kettle of boiling water and declaiming that you’re fine since your nostrils are still above the waterline. Who do you think you’re convincing?
Best analogy I can gather for me would be like shutting off a cars cooling fan when it was at 175 , now it’s at 182 , (given a 180 thermostat)
Sitting still would make it hit 185-190 before the fan kicked in even though it should most of the time reliably still be at 180 but no matter what , I can tell you what’s gonna happen if you don’t reconnect that fan in time.
Average temperatures at McMurdo Station are -26°C in winter and -3°C in summer. It would take an increase of 18°C just to get McMurdo Station up to the same temperatures as Anchorage, Alaska (which is hardly “moderate-temperature”). What you’re describing would require an increase of about 30°C. Current predictions are nowhere near that.
This is something that seems to be hard for people to grasp. Take Chicago, for example. Chicagoans are used to seeing daytime highs of 84°F in the summer and nighttime lows of 18°F in winter. Now change those numbers to 91°F and 25°F, respectively. Summers are still hot, winters are still cold, you still get lots of snow, not much has changed really. When we talk about Global Warming, people imagine huge temperature swings like 20°, 40°, even 60° F. That’s totally unrealistic. It’s really hard for people to wrap their heads around the fact that a shift so small you’d hardly notice it when you walked outside (especially if it happens slowly over several decades) is nonetheless sufficient to wreak havoc with things like flooding of coastal cities, bleaching of coral reefs, disrupting animal and plant life which can’t adapt quickly enough, flooding the Okefenokee Swamp with salt water, turning the American Midwest into a desert, et cetera.
Well, that’s what I thought, too, but the chart map in the OP claims that Western Antarctica will be “densely populated with high rises” and a food-growing zone with moderate temperatures. Don’t know how but i was just going by the chart.
I think you missed other posts pointing out that the ones making that chart were not climate scientists.