Warming

* Ecosystems severely damaged at +1C
* Abrupt extinction events from +1.25C
* Planet's liveability at risk by +1.5C
* Global crop failure fears +1.75C
* Impacts we can't adapt to +2C
* Hothouse Earth zone? +2.25C
* Survival is hard before +2.5C

+2.5C likely by 2050-2075

Ocean extinctions:

'The first completely global bleaching event was in 1998. That was a wake-up call for people here in Australia, because that was the first time ever that the Great Barrier Reef had bleached.'

99% of tropical corals will be doomed at 2C.https://t.co/8OB7KpPFEU
Many already endangered species are now at risk of suddenly becoming extinct as extreme events worsen.
https://t.co/Itlnp7z8Hy
'going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.'

Or even in the 2020s.

https://t.co/FQ3r5jWPtn
'Even if warming was limited to 1.5 K, all major producing countries would still face notable warming-induced yield reduction.'

1.5C looks like it could deliver major crises. Risks to crops appear set to grow immensely from +1.75C.

https://t.co/rya17lD5eq
'There's a lot we can’t adapt to even at 2C. At 4C the impacts are very high and we cannot adapt to them.'https://t.co/raYr1X8o33
'when we reach 2 degrees of warming, we may be at a point where we hand over the control mechanism to Planet Earth herself'

https://t.co/5sIG7F3Kjz
'Vague, distant targets for 2030 or 2050 will not keep the world “well below 2C” of warming as the Paris Agreement promised. I can tell you, a 2C hotter world is a death sentence for countries like mine.'

https://t.co/pQAavJB6vs
We need emergency system change now.

Richard Alley, geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University and contributor to multiple IPCC reports:

at 2°C “you are having impacts on most people, impacts on the market, that make it hard for everyone to live.”https://t.co/pLA4CwrCg7
'An estimated 5% of all species would be threatened with extinction by 2°C of warming above pre-industrial levels'.

We're currently on track for 2C by 2034-2043.

https://t.co/PGlUXnEE2Q
https://t.co/CIAIIcuxcC

You May Also Like

My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x