Tthis is perhaps good news, but it does not amount to a change of course, unfortunately. If we have passed peak emissions, it is still a long way from net-zero emissions. Like if you pass your peak rate of overspending your salary, but you are still continuing to go farther into debt. Even when you get to parity between salary and expenditures, you will STILL have the accumulated debt and in the case of CO2, that debt is wreaking ecosystem destruction. Do not cheer this news.
Still, this means that humanity is adding to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and doing so at close to its fastest pace ever.
It’s good that this pace is at least not accelerating, but the plateau implies a world that will continue to get warmer. To halt rising temperatures, humans will have to stop emitting greenhouse gases, zeroing their net output, and even start withdrawing the carbon previously emitted.
I’m curious, what part of that statement needs substantive proof? I feel like you can come to this conclusion from first principles, as long as you have some level of understanding of the greenhouse effect and knowledge of how it has affected ecosystems in the past.
Tthis is perhaps good news, but it does not amount to a change of course, unfortunately. If we have passed peak emissions, it is still a long way from net-zero emissions. Like if you pass your peak rate of overspending your salary, but you are still continuing to go farther into debt. Even when you get to parity between salary and expenditures, you will STILL have the accumulated debt and in the case of CO2, that debt is wreaking ecosystem destruction. Do not cheer this news.
I’m curious as to where you are getting your information from. Would you mind providing credible sources for your claims?
From the article:
The problem with the ecosystems is that evolution can’t adapt fast enough.
When it takes 500-5000 years for 1 degree rise, then yeah nature adapts pretty smoothly. When it’s 50 years then things get really screwed.
Obligatory XKCD but I think this one explains the problem extremely well: https://xkcd.com/1732/
I’m curious, what part of that statement needs substantive proof? I feel like you can come to this conclusion from first principles, as long as you have some level of understanding of the greenhouse effect and knowledge of how it has affected ecosystems in the past.
you want proof that accumulated carbon dioxide is causing environmental destruction?! https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
Thanks.