Slashdot Mirror
The Science Behind the Paris Climate Accords (thebulletin.org)
Lasrick writes: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists offers a pretty thorough run-down of the pros and cons of the Paris climate accords. William Sweet examines not only the political machinations behind the agreement but much of what the agreement entails and how it got there after 21 years of COP meetings. "As for the tighter 1.5-degree standard, this is a complicated issue that the Paris accords fudge a bit. The difference between impacts expected from a 1.5-degree world and a 2-degree world are not trivial. The Greenland ice sheet, for example, is expected to melt in its entirely in the 2-degree scenario, while in a 1.5-degree world the odds of a complete melt are only 70 percent... But at the same time the scientific consensus is that it would be virtually impossible to meet the 1.5-degree goal because on top of the 0.8–0.9 degrees of warming that already has occurred, another half-degree is already in the pipeline, 'hidden away in the oceans,' as Schellnhuber put it." In an additional audio recording of a teleconference briefing given to the Bulletin's Science and Security Board and other leading scientists and policy makers, Sivan Kartha and Richard Somerville (both on the S & S Board) explain what was accomplished (and not accomplished).
Lol.
Hasn't this rag been discredited enough already?
These so-called "Atomic Scientists" don't actually do any "Atomic Science" (whatever the fuck that is), because they're staunchly anti-nuclear, so this would preclude any type of "Atomic Science".
Captcha: NIMBY.
...another half-degree is already in the pipeline, 'hidden away in the oceans,' as Schellnhuber put it.
To the contrary.
I believe it's the official journal behind the "Doomsday Clock". It used to be only about nuclear war. Now, it's all ELEs
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Where is the science and economics that tells us that the agreement is the optimal solution? That reducing CO2 emissions is the only possible response to the problem? That the cure won't be worse than the disease?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
That's not from the 3-5 mm/year sea level rise. That's from overpumping of groundwater. Once you suck the fresh water out, the silt compacts and the land subsides. You can fairly blame that on overdevelopment, but it doesn't have the slightest connection to climate.
wow. posting is undoing my moderation and my apologies but I don't think my lone positive moderation is having any impact anyway. I just can't believe that your post is being bottomed out as a troll. Apparently the climate change deniers are even stronger here than I thought.
To anyone reading this: just because you don't believe in climate change and the fact that Florida is facing real consequences doesn't make PopeRatzo's post a troll.
To the person who replied with "3-5mm/year" and "flooding is caused by compaction resulting from pumping water out" -- care to explain how the limestone is compacting? Or do you really think that building houses, roads, etc., on silt actually works?
Silt is compacting and land subsiding in California's central valley from groundwater pumping but that isn't the case in Florida where the underlying bedrock is limestone. What groundwater pumping does in Florida is allow the ocean saltwater to intrude further inland contaminating existing freshwater supplied. Subsidence is not the issue in southern Florida.