Of what value is this new climate study that says much of the earth may become unihabitable in the next 300 years?
Principal investigator Matthew Huber acknowledges that the study cannot and does not account for:
1. the rates of global warming which are quote “difficult to know,”
2. future greenhouse gas-related behaviors of societies, and
3. future emission levels.
The study presumes quote “a wide greenhouse gas emissions pathway,” also acknowledged to be an uncertain presumption.
I get that mammals will die if the earth gets too hot. (Duh, no?) Perhaps it’s useful that this study has brought attention to wet bulb temperature as an important variable to measure. But it seems kind of silly to presume constant emissions over 300 years if we’ve already reached peak oil (assuming that’s true). Then there’s this quote—
“These temperatures haven’t been seen during the existence of hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures again,” Huber said. “If we consider these worst-case scenarios early enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through mitigation or new technological advancements that will allow us to adapt.”
So manmade global warming might recreate wet bulb temps not seen since the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
. Are we really that good that we can recreate an event not seen in 50 million years? Don’t we already have the “technology to adapt” vis a vis solar, wind, etc., and isn’t technology what got us here in the first place?
How is this study, its implications, and its call to action (what @MattBrowne and others refer to as “the precautionary principle”) any different from Pascal’s Wager?
I’m genuinely interested in opinions that support the usefulness of this study. Please convince me if you are so inclined.
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.