zlacker

>>LinuxB+(OP)
The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years.

It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

>>just_s+nm
All it does it prove how fruitless the prevention of climate change is.

A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an unprecedented scale still doesn't track enough to prevent climate change.

If that isn't a clear indicator of how severe the situation is then I don't know what else is.

>>breakf+7s
Unpopular prediction: we're going to solve global warming by the 22nd century, but we're going to "solve" it with nuclear winter and the destruction of 80-90% of humanity. Once we're down to a billion people or so and most of what passes for advanced civilization has been destroyed, carbon emissions and warming won't be a problem.

>>nostra+Ou
Nuclear winter seems unlikely to me, and from what I understand I'm not alone. Cities are no longer prone to huge firestorms like they once were. Furthermore most nuclear strikes would probably be airbursts to maximize blast effects, but that means less material being thrown into the atmosphere. If the attack were calculated to cause maximum fallout instead, airbursts of salted bombs might be used, which would poison huge areas of land but would not particularly contribute to a nuclear winter.

>>stretc+Pz
The primary targets for nukes aren't cities, they're other nukes. Most of these warheads are set for groundburst (or underground burst - I remember a bunch of research in the 80s about burrowing/penetrating warheads), because to blow up a 3-4 foot thick reinforced concrete silo you basically need to land right on top of it. That's the big fallout threat.