Slashdot Mirror
Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
New submitter SomeoneFromBelgium (3420851) writes According to Bloomberg a leaked climate report from the IPPC speaks of "Irreversible Damage." The warnings in the report are, as such, not new but the tone of voice is more urgent and more direct than ever. It states among other things that global warming already is affecting "all continents and across the oceans," and that "risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action."
It was kind of going that way anyhow though, either to a tropical earth or back towards a new ice age. And really given the choice the tropical option is less destrcutive. As I understand it we were in an interglacial until people started digging up sequestered carbon and injecting it into the atmosphere. Either way I don't believe it will be possible to stabilise the climate over the mid to long term, at least not with our current technology, so maybe its best just to prepare to adapt to these changes.
1. Average planetary temperature now is about 12C. Average temperature for most of the past billion years or so is 22C
2. Average CO2 concentration today is EXTREME geological LOW. It's been as high as > 7000ppm
3. There's pretty much ZERO correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Note well that if temperatures go up 2C, we've still got 8C to go before the planet reaches its "normal" average temperature.
Ok, I'll accept that... of course the first mammals appeared on the planet around say 225million years ago, and were the size of perhaps a mouse or smaller. Larger mammals have been found around 100million years ago, around the size of a large rat perhaps... it wasn't until say 55million years ago the earliest ancestor for man/primates appeared, Archicebus, which would fit in the palm of your hand and weigh maybe an ounce.
So maybe instead of the past "billion years" we should focus on say the past 50million, where temperatures and CO2 levels were at a level where a mammal like mankind could survive on most of the planet? Seems rather pointless to say the planet has been "22C average" when at the time it was mankind didn't exist, and more than likely with a 10C increase over current temperatures it's unlikely human beings could survive in many areas (a 100F desert will kill in a day or two w/o water - imagine 120-130F?).
I mean, unless you're worried about ants, cockroaches, and mammals the size of mice, and shrews, it might be wiser to focus on temperatures that human beings can and have survived in, and not some 'average' that includes numbers from many (up to 950million) years before anything even remotely human-like existed. Because, yes, "life" existed at 7000ppm and 22C - but not human life.