tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post8135316208383037955..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: How Long Do We Have to Reduce Emissions to Avoid Catastrophe? Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74437287145259480952022-10-06T14:05:27.424-07:002022-10-06T14:05:27.424-07:00I guess my simplistic point is that the best evide...I guess my simplistic point is that the best evidence indicates that future warming depends mostly on future emissions. Hence, how much more warming "we" experience largely depends on choices that are made now and in the future, not on some fundamental aspect of the physical climate system, or on past emissions (which determines warming to date). The targets are aspirations that even if they're not met are better to just miss than to miss by a lot. <br /><br />So, we could choose to give up on some target and move on, and maybe that is the honest thing to do in terms of accepting what is probably inevitable. The problem I have is how we do that while still highlighting that the reason it was missed is mostly because the problem was not taken seriously, rather than because it was always unavoidable. And, if in ~10 years time we get to the point where 2C has now become unavoidable, do we simply move on from that target? <br /> ...and Then There's Physicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758445533849376372noreply@blogger.com