We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Lasrick writes Dawn Stover writes in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that climate change is irreversible but not unstoppable. She describes the changes that are happening already and also those likely to happen, and compares what is coming to the climate of the Pliocene: 'Even if countries reduce emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising much above the internationally agreed-upon "danger" threshold of 2 degrees Celsius (which seems increasingly unlikely), we can still look forward to conditions similar to those of the mid-Pliocene epoch of 3 million years ago. At that time, the continents were in much the same positions that they are today, carbon dioxide levels ranged between 350 and 400 ppm, the global average temperature was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher than it is today (but up to 20 degrees higher than today at the northernmost latitudes), the global sea level was about 25 meters higher, and most of today's North American forests were grasslands and savanna.' Stover agrees with two scientists published in Nature Geoscience that 'Future warming is therefore driven by socio-economic inertia," and points the way toward changing a Pliocene future.

Comments

Re:Who did the study?

[TheRealHocusLocus]

[AC first post that was modded -1 once and +1 twice]
I never would have guessed. The nuclear power industry which funds the entire fraudulent "global warming" faux-science scam, would like to tell you there's still time, if you act now.

My that's a lot of crap in one sentence. You see the word 'Atomic' on a web page and you think you're listening to someone from the nuclear power industry? And you think THEY are deep-pocket funding some 'faux-science' scam? You've got it so backwards.

First, the nuclear power industry, for all its glory and base load contribution, is not wealthy at all. Their construction costs are high due to a combination of deliberate over-engineering and a degree of government oversight unprecedented in history. They have historically competed with coal and held their own. They are presently competing with a rising glut of natural gas power generation on the grid, a glut that will level off and decline in a few years. Carbon-neutral, reliable nuclear plants are being shut by corporate 'cents per kWh' fuck-it let's decommission it vandalism and a type of malfeasance that arises from eco-radiophobes. And when gas does decline, a whole bunch of corporate fucks will wake up and ask, "Gee, where do we put our stupid money now?" Why, coal --- of course.

So no, the nuclear power industry did not 'fund' a global warming scam. In fact, they have been taken in by its urgency along with so many people. They have been SCREWED by it because they honestly thought that a nigh-well limitless source of carbon-neutral energy would be embraced by a world in desperate need to solve the 'problem'. Well I guess it wasn't that much of a problem, or the world is not so desperate to solve it after all. Or perhaps the people who happen to be most convinced of runaway warming scenarios are the same people who (irrationally) fear nuclear energy?

And... where did the click-bait headline "we stopped at two bombs" come from!?

(yes I know you were not the original poster) The last sentence of the linked article.

Considering that there have been over 2000 nuclear tests, it's a miracle that we have stopped at two bombs. And not gone on to do THIS
or THIS
or THIS
or THIS
or THIS
or THIS.

So, where did all this caterwauling about 2 verses 2000 come from? I really had to think about it for a minute... WHY would anyone question that 'stopped at 2 bomb' figure...? Then it hit me.

Testing of nuclear bombs is being conflated here with their actual use in war. These things do not conflate, people. I'd recommend you go on to consider that doing so is kind of sick. It is as if the original intent of these weapons, to kill millions of people and devastate their lands, is being marginalized in favor of some point of view where nuclear explosions are 'eco-unfriendly'. Not as some regrettable side-effect but as a primary talking point. That is really an ugly type of thinking in my opinion. It anthropomorphizes the Earth at the expense of humanity.

With all due respect, a certain casual misanthropy has been creeping into the culture, and it is most often heard these days from people passionate about climate change. It is an unproductive, poisonous evolutionary dead end. I don't mean to offend anyone but this is a difficult subject to discuss because people don't realize they are doing it.

Atomic energy is being conflated with atomic warfare, as if the mere