This is a new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. As always, please be respectful of other commentators and try to avoid using repetition to make your points. Discussions related to the physical Earth System should be on the Unforced Variations threads.
597 Killian, i am with you on Simplicity. And that ‘study/article’ sure was simple. and I suspect a very reasonable statement to make … Loss is 17% and when it gets to 20% then it’s all over into “tipping point territory”.
What was thinking of is how complicated many “publishing houses” and then the media, and then science blogs makes it …. at times impossible for the public to even have half a chance of understanding the issues.
eg I cannot see any rational reason why those two qualified authors could not have a provided a bets of list or references to either other commentaries, articles or science papers that underpin their assertion of the 17% to 20% and the likely timing of that (all things being equal).
That org has US$100 Million sitting on a shelf. How about using it to educate the public which is what they “claim” their MO Mission Statement and Purpose/Goals are supposed to be. But what I see is rank incompetence providing falsehoods to their readers and the public. That’s UNETHICAL for a “science org” of any type to do. It’s Unconscionable.
Compare what they and many others do, with this Goal Mission “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.”
Nice and warm and fuzzy in a Theoretical sense. I believe it is a lot “simpler” than people end up making it. (for many quite human reasons, but “it is what it is”.)
Doesn’t matter in the big scheme of things I expect. I have been able to accept where all this heading and so be it.