Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Julian Cribb's avatar

As a rule climate outcomes tend to deliver results above, or well above, those predicted. Furthermore, today’s climate policy goals can no longer be relied on, in view of the mad stampede for Arctic oil and gas,combined with the oil industry’s successful defiance of all efforts to rein it in. Conservatively, the fossil fuels sector will kill 350m people by 2050 and over a billion by 2100, not including those who die of famine or water scarcity. Instead of attempting to predict degrees of heating, it is time the climate community got real and predicted human fatalities. Governments and corporates would find that less easy to ignore.

Expand full comment
John Gage's avatar

Based on Dr. James Hansen's recent work, a TCS of 4.5˚C seems more likely than the IPCC's estimate of 3˚C from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (youtube.com/watch?v=D2abyXGvELI).

If Hansen is right, none of the study estimates here are realistic. His long history of being right should give the IPCC reason to reconsider.

The important question is no longer so much of projected warming - we are in big trouble. The real question is when will the US will get around to closing the growing US carbon price gap with the prices of our major trading partners? Rather than dragging its feet, the US must help close the growing global carbon price gap: the global average price is $5/tCO2e, but the IPCC-recommended estimates required for a chance at a livable future is a global price of $80/tCO2e this year, rising to $135/tCO2e in 2030 and to $690/tCO2e in 2100 (carboncashback.org/carbon-price-gap).

Expand full comment
64 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?