The title of this post won't mean much until you read this contribution to The Conversation, a new and laudable attempt by climatologists to get out the message that time's a wastin,' folks. Here's a taste:
We're only a few decades away from a major tipping point, plus or minus only about a decade. The rate at which the ice sheets would melt is fairly uncertain, but not the result that says we are very close to a tipping point committing to such melt and breakdown.
Is it irresponsible or "alarmist" of climatologists to point this out? The science brief for policy is not to prescribe policies, but to point out the implications of pursuing or not pursuing particular courses of action.
Pointing out that we are close to one of the largest tipping points imaginable in the climate system is well within the remit of science. It's not alarmist to describe the threat accurately; it's alarming if the political and social culture can't absorb this.
There's nothing new or surprising in the way of science in this Conversation. But it's high time we started having it. As David Roberts at Grist points out, today's most optimistic outlook for emissions reductions leaves us far short of safe:
Source: BP Energy Outlook 2030.
Bu doÄru bir tehdit aÃ§Ä±klamak iÃ§in alarmist deÄildir; siyasi ve toplumsal kÃ¼ltÃ¼r bu absorbe edemez eÄer endiÅe verici.
Are they intending someone to wonder what they mean and click on their account to find out?