One of the worst xkcd's. It just leaves out the information that the supposed "immediate massive action to limit emissions" is, in fact, a mass dying of humans; nothing else currently known to us would change the curve the way it is drawn.
That's an assumption based on a multitude of assumption all of which could be wrong to various degrees. It's perfectly possible that birth rates will go down in the future and become negative and population will shrink and together with tech-progress it could eventually reach a sustainably level.
Yes, the chance of this happening is not great but it's not zero.
It's a bit telling how sure you are reducing emissions will kill massive amounts of humans compared to how much hope you're willing to give alternatives that don't reduce oil industry profits, like "maybe all populations will shrink naturally really soon".
If you really think this way, I suggest trying to apply the same zeal to all the options when you're trying to decide what you believe. If you don't feel this way and are just trolling or shilling then that sucks.
Who said it makes it better? It's horrible, pretending that there is some kind of "massive action" that we should take, but that massive action would need to be to kill billions of people.
If you want to do anything, go ahead, but the only thing we know that would work is killing billions of people within a very short time.
Is that what you want to do? If yes, then how? It would need to be done carefully; if the world powers just start nuking each-other, it's not going to lead to the desired outcome.
And no, it's not over, the curve will just not follow the first or second line. That's all. The planet is still habitable at +4°C according to our best models.
Mobile version
https://m.xkcd.com/1732/
One of the worst xkcd's. It just leaves out the information that the supposed "immediate massive action to limit emissions" is, in fact, a mass dying of humans; nothing else currently known to us would change the curve the way it is drawn.
The current trajectory is also a mass dying of humans so hopefully we can thread the needle there.
That's an assumption based on a multitude of assumption all of which could be wrong to various degrees. It's perfectly possible that birth rates will go down in the future and become negative and population will shrink and together with tech-progress it could eventually reach a sustainably level. Yes, the chance of this happening is not great but it's not zero.
It's a bit telling how sure you are reducing emissions will kill massive amounts of humans compared to how much hope you're willing to give alternatives that don't reduce oil industry profits, like "maybe all populations will shrink naturally really soon".
If you really think this way, I suggest trying to apply the same zeal to all the options when you're trying to decide what you believe. If you don't feel this way and are just trolling or shilling then that sucks.
It also could lead to a false impression that the Earth was warming regardless of human impact.
and that is supposed to make it better how, exactly? should we just not do anything since it's over anyways?
Who said it makes it better? It's horrible, pretending that there is some kind of "massive action" that we should take, but that massive action would need to be to kill billions of people. If you want to do anything, go ahead, but the only thing we know that would work is killing billions of people within a very short time. Is that what you want to do? If yes, then how? It would need to be done carefully; if the world powers just start nuking each-other, it's not going to lead to the desired outcome.
And no, it's not over, the curve will just not follow the first or second line. That's all. The planet is still habitable at +4°C according to our best models.