Houston we have problem

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have traveled for one second, and I have traveled just over three percent of the distance to my eventual destination, increasing the rate at which I travel by double every second, as a steady curve. In how many more seconds will I reach my destination, or 100% of the distance?

The answer is, approximately five seconds. But I'm not even 1/25th of the way there. It's not easy to conclude that my journey is 1/6th over.

Just take the number 100 and divide it by two six times, and you'll see that 3 percent can actually be 1/6th of the way there, assuming a certain rate of change.

As with accelerating trends in climate, which represents a rate of change, if I've only gone 14 percent of the way to my eventual destination of 10 degrees difference, in a matter of 30 years, then this isn't a big problem to most people. But realistically, I am much further along than it appears.

It's not blindingly obvious, but it's mathematics, due to rate of change.

What the precise rate of change is, with regards to climate, is up for debate. But if we assume a steady change for no reason whatsoever, 14 percent is still a significant progression towards the end result of 10 degrees difference. That's the completely unfounded and entirely unreasonable assumption of steady change. There hasn't BEEN steady change. So it's actually worse.

I can't tell you how much worse it is, precisely. But I don't think 1/4th or 1/3rd of the way there is an unreasonable assumption to make, considering the relatively dramatic shift and recent changes. If we're not assuming steady change, then even a minor acceleration can put you at 1/4th progression, with only 14% of the distance traveled.

Debatable is the rate of change, not debatable is that the earth is warming, and that the warming is becoming more rapid. Even if it weren't becoming more rapid, the end result is still nasty. But it is becoming more rapid.

Deniers would have more plausibility if they were trying to argue that it won't get bad for 100-200 years. They'd still be wrong, but at least they could use bad math to argue their point, which is better than nothing at all. Instead, they argue total nonsense entirely.