EDIT: You know what, acylhalide, I got a little impatient in this reply. Sorry. Let me get to work, and do my best given your previous response. Thanks. :)
Hm, well, there’s a range of temperature rise mentioned in IPCC reports. You’re discussing it as if there’s one. There was one goal temperature rise, a rise of less than 1.5C GAST this century, but it’s not plausible now. So I guess explaining why that is so is useful to you.
When you say a different understanding of civilizational collapse, different than whose? Some scientists who helped create the IPCC report are worried about civilizational collapse, for example, Peter Carter. Are you interested in his opinions and scenario discussions? And there’s several other climate scientists with similar scenario discussions, for example, about the fall of tipping elements in the climate system within the next 30-50 years. EDIT: Many climate scientists are going out of their way to underscore the plausible consequences of temperature rises greater than 2.0C GAST.
As far as what pathway I’m considering, I can explain that right now. A pathway where people deny the problem, assume that it is being fixed, or support solutions that were valid 20-30 years ago as still valid today.
I’m not sure whether you consider anything outside of what is published as a consensus to be useful.
I can argue the problem of civilizational collapse as either:
predictable according to plausible scenarios of concern to (a large subgroup of) climate scientists
predictable given contradictions in consensus reports such as the IPCC AR6
predictable given consensus reports such as the IPCC AR6
The use of probabilities obscures the problem, by the way.
EDIT: You know what, acylhalide, I got a little impatient in this reply. Sorry. Let me get to work, and do my best given your previous response. Thanks. :)
Hm, well, there’s a range of temperature rise mentioned in IPCC reports. You’re discussing it as if there’s one. There was one goal temperature rise, a rise of less than 1.5C GAST this century, but it’s not plausible now.
So I guess explaining why that is so is useful to you.When you say a different understanding of civilizational collapse, different than whose? Some scientists who helped create the IPCC report are worried about civilizational collapse, for example, Peter Carter. Are you interested in his opinions and scenario discussions? And there’s several other climate scientists with similar scenario discussions, for example, about the fall of tipping elements in the climate system within the next 30-50 years. EDIT: Many climate scientists are going out of their way to underscore the plausible consequences of temperature rises greater than 2.0C GAST.
As far as what pathway I’m considering, I can explain that right now. A pathway where people deny the problem, assume that it is being fixed, or support solutions that were valid 20-30 years ago as still valid today.
I’m not sure whether you consider anything outside of what is published as a consensus to be useful.
I can argue the problem of civilizational collapse as either:
predictable according to plausible scenarios of concern to (a large subgroup of) climate scientists
predictable given contradictions in consensus reports such as the IPCC AR6
predictable given consensus reports such as the IPCC AR6
The use of probabilities obscures the problem, by the way.
What is your preference in that regard?