• chillhelm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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:

      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.

      • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for the gist.

        but it’s not helpful that they just: ‘so you’re saying there’s a chance!?’

      • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism.

        The study that is the subject of the article has yet to be peer-reviewed. I am not an expert on doomerism, but that makes the article appear a bit doomerish.

    • Krono@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I prefer my doomerism to be vague.

      Precise doomerism is just too depressing.