The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you’d read it you would have found the following paragraph:
Their results showed that we’re not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.
Basically they are saying “this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system”.
They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.
Actually, no.
The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you’d read it you would have found the following paragraph:
Basically they are saying “this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system”.
They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.
Thanks for the gist.
but it’s not helpful that they just: ‘so you’re saying there’s a chance!?’
deleted by creator
The title makes it doomerish for sure.