I am opposed to inaccurate messaging that induces people to give up hope.
For the benefit of people who might just be grazing in the thread, I thought it would be useful to explain that a superficial glance at the post is not necessarily reflecting the substance of the study.
In this case false hope is much more dangerous.
And the question is what are we hoping for?
the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.Very early on in the process the target was shifted from 1 to 1,5C for pure economic reasons. Then we slid to 2C because we did nothing in the meantime.
So you already see that the targets are not underpinned by science but politics.
As were the choices about the type of presentation made. Theoretically it would make sense to have a number of lines we should not cross (kickstarting irreversible melt in Arctic, Waking Antarctica, the permafrost, avoid losing mountain glaciers which quench our thirst etc) and let the best science on those produce constraints on the budget.
But no they cobbled together a bunch of scenarios in which the near term did not really matter. This choice in itself was once again political which you can clearly see if you read up on all the earth responses in the different categories.
And on that note...
For the benefit of people who might just be grazing in the threadThis is a specialist forum which means that if people graze a thread they are probably checking to see if new posts contain an interesting new article or just the running discussion or something like that.
If an article is interesting i will often read the science attached if it´s not paywalled. Then you think about it in relation to all the things you have already read.
When you discover ASIF the first time there is so much to delve into. How much and what people delve into varies.
An on topic response addressing a specific point in the study or something like that would arguably be of more benefit for people grazing the thread.
Hope is fine but we need action too. Whatever our state of despair we have only one (1) planet and nowhere else to go. Any long term problem we do not prevent will be harder and more costly to solve later on. We are acting irresponsibly and we should stop that.
It might be interesting to include other metrics like the carbon clock.
We only have a tiny real budget. Even if things are looking good for solar that does not mean it will happen fast enough. Plans are announced to be carbon neutral in 2050 (slow clap here) while the budget runs out in 2030. EVs and solar are only part of the carbon mix.
You can hope you brake in time before you go over the cliff or not drive towards that with your foot on the accelerator. We are still doing the latter while it is 2020.
Or a free variation on Curt & Kurt: Who needs action when you´ve got numbers?