Freedom Gas!

[Fenring]

You also have millions of people in drought zones who will become increasingly at risk of food and water shortages, leading to things like civil and international wars and mass human migration.  Beachfront property is the least of 'our' concerns as are polar bears. If you think refugees are straining US resources today, this should really be what you focus on... that is, if the idea of tens of millions of additional people being displaced, starving and dying doesn't do it for you.

I have to admit to ignorance regarding the connection between high temperature and drought in dry areas. Does having the temperature be 0.3 degrees higher on average lower the humidity in the environs such that it causes a drought? If so, my recommendation would be that an emergency measure of helping the drought areas by creating water channels or new reclamation systems would be far cheaper than crippling the entire global economy. And note that I'm not saying it's cheap, but if the "doomsday" crowd really means it then why isn't the argument that the government *must* take measures to help drought areas before it's too late?

[D.W.]

Mostly because allowing for controlled migration is a far superior plan than trying to "rescue" areas which are becoming less hospitable over time.

[DonaldD]

Does having the temperature be 0.3 degrees higher on average...

  You realize that the world is on average already (let's go with NASA) 0.9 degrees (Celsius I assume you meant) warmer than the late 19th century, right?  That's 3 times higher already than the number you pulled out of your hat. We are also going to be severely challenged in keeping future temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius.

And note that I'm not saying it's cheap, but if the "doomsday" crowd really means it then why isn't the argument that the government *must* take measures to help drought areas before it's too late?

  Who do you think pushes for more foreign aid?  It isn't the climate change denialist crowd.  Look, there is already more than enough food grown to supply the world's population.  But for some reason, people are not shipping free food to starving people in drought ridden and war torn countries.

If so, my recommendation would be that an emergency measure of helping the drought areas by creating water channels

    If this was so easy (if expensive) then wouldn't the wealthiest country in the world have been able to solve its own drought issues in California, one of the wealthiest areas in the country? Cutting "channels through mountain ranges, and making water flow uphill is really not as simple as you might think.  And doing so for poor people half way across the world, when Mexicans are coming to steal our jobs, rob our stores and rape our women?  It's not going to happen.

...would be far cheaper than crippling the entire global economy

Ah here we have it - there are many things that can be done that would improve the world's economy and still reduce carbon emissions.  This is simply a failure of imagination and interest on your part.

[Fenring]

@ DonaldD,

You mistake me in all of your responses, especially your last one. As Han put it, I can imagine quite a bit. I'm not taking the anti-AGW side on this issue, but rather wondering why the form of the arguments has typically taken the form of regulation of carbon emissions via central fiat, and not (to my understanding) typically been framed in terms of helping people in poor countries more or in helping migrate people living in bad areas. I don't recall Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth having a section named An Inconvenient Township. I am all for making energy production more green, and in fact am probably more of an eco-conservationist than a lot of people clamoring for low-carbon regulation. I'm probably more of a pro-technologist than people hoping to replace fossil-fuels.

What I'm asking is why these matters are always framed in partisan terms, or at the very least employing so-called strategies that always end up falling along partisan lines. I don't think anyone would consider "let's build a water system for California" as a partisan byline, and that's probably why one doesn't hear such rallies on a national level: it doesn't sell tickets.

And once we're on the topic of helping third world countries, we could talk about Mexico and South/Central America until we're blue in the face, but let's get real: ruining those countries has been a bipartisan effort for decades. There is no serious desire to substantially help them stand on their own two feet; not when it's far more agreeable to keep them at their knees. That they lack the infrastructure, leadership, and commitment to helping their poor and solving national issues effectively may be laid down to many causes, but not quite helping them enough isn't one of them. So again, if their plight is the real issue then why isn't the rallying cry to end international policies that render them unable to govern themselves properly? Shouldn't that be at least as high a priority as scolding carbon-emitting nations? And wouldn't solving it deal with not only their particular problem in climate but also many others at the same time? But we won't see protests about that, will we?

[DonaldD]

I really don't "mistake you".  Honestly, "0.3" degrees?  Since you have an opinion on what trends you see in people's posts on the subject, how can you seriously ask that question knowing that in no scenario  would there simply be a 0.3 degree change in daily temps? 

It is instructive that all of your oversights and mistakes occur in a single direction.  Think about that for a moment

As for arguments taking a certain form - the majority of the arguments are about the very existence of the temperature trend. That you think the only solutions require economic Armageddon also suggests you are not paying attention

As for helping those poor countries... We already see thousands of North Africans drowning in the Mediterranean every summer, people fleeing situations that are already being exacerbated by climate change.  The world is already doing nothing.  Pretending this will change as the numbers rise is not just ahistorical, it cooks into any eventual forced action probably hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not millions, before the world does anything.

But of course that ignores that those people receiving foreign aid won't simply sit around in dust bowl conditions, depending on the outside world for food and water... Significant numbers of them will simply leave.  I'd you think there are migration problems now...

Pretty much all of your solutions are naive and fly in the face of current reality... And all because you really, to be generous, have not informed yourself.

[Fenring]

I really don't "mistake you".  Honestly, "0.3" degrees?  Since you have an opinion on what trends you see in people's posts on the subject, how can you seriously ask that question knowing that in no scenario  would there simply be a 0.3 degree change in daily temps?

I'm not sure why you're picking at this arbitrary figure so intently, it's not like I claimed this was an upper limit of possible climate increase. I mentioned 0.3 degrees just as an example of a timeline-based number. So let's go to NASA's website, a source I'm sure you'll be content with:

NASA says:
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010.

Let's take these figures for granted, and say that "most of the warming" means 75% of it. That means that in 35 years the global climate went up 1.215 degrees Fahrenheit. Since many posts and articles I see mention something like a 10 year deadline before very bad things happen, we might suggest that 10/35 * 1.215 = 0.347 degrees over 10 years. Actually I hadn't looked this up before and I literally guessed a number, but by pure fluke it's very close to 0.3 degrees, the number you're mocking. Of course I didn't mention the 10-year figure previously so you can accuse me of cherry-picking that time-frame, but it's a seemingly reasonable one considering the deadlines one sometimes hears talk of. And while I do agree that long-term planning should trump short-term hand-waiving (to make an understatement), at the same time I don't know that definitive claims for 30+ years into the future are something we can really predict.

It is instructive that all of your oversights and mistakes occur in a single direction.  Think about that for a moment.

What are "all" my oversights and mistakes? I made so many of them that they can be called an "all"? Incidentally, I assume you consider that 'direction' to be that of doing nothing? But when did I say that? Or do you mean my comments are shilling for big oil or something?

As for arguments taking a certain form - the majority of the arguments are about the very existence of the temperature trend. That you think the only solutions require economic Armageddon also suggests you are not paying attention.

No, I definitely *do not* think that the only solutions involve economic armageddon, not by any means. Does this mean we agree? But having observed the limited attempts thus far to make changes on an international feel-good level, that seems to be the only consensus-oriented solution that's been offered. Actually I think that much more progress will be found technologically rather than through agreements that won't really curb the trend. It's precisely that I would rather do something than nothing that I take this position. If it were up to me I would re-allocate billions from defense spending directly into R&D (both public and private) where needed. 

As for helping those poor countries... We already see thousands of North Africans drowning in the Mediterranean every summer, people fleeing situations that are already being exacerbated by climate change.  The world is already doing nothing.  Pretending this will change as the numbers rise is not just ahistorical, it cooks into any eventual forced action probably hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not millions, before the world does anything.

I hadn't researched this issue much but since you prompted me I looked up several articles on the topic of African and Mid-Eastern migration towards Europe, which seems to have grown drastically since around 2014. One NY Times article cites the number of deaths in the Mediterranean at over 10,000. A horror to be sure. However all articles I've found on the topic mention two chief causes for the exodus: the fall of Gaddafi's government, and the war in Syria, two events that have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with politics. And lest the right vs left dispute seem too obviously to fall under "the left wants to help while the right ignores the problem", it should be noted that both of the major incidents took place not only under Democratic leadership, but more properly (and based on what my researches previously have shown) at the direct instigation of certain players like Hillary Clinton. You will find me the first to get in line to express grief over both campaigns, and you will likewise find me annoyed at anyone in the current government content to hand-wave away their part in it.

Now I'm not saying that other factors can influence migrants to seek better conditions, but I'll be surprised if you can find a good source insisting that the migrations began primarily due to climate change rather than due to political instability.

Pretty much all of your solutions are naive and fly in the face of current reality... And all because you really, to be generous, have not informed yourself.

I wasn't proposing a complete list of solutions, I was asking questions. My questions were basically with the intent to inquire why the AGW side of the climate debate rarely accompanies the scientific arguments with arguments about either political or infrastructure-based conditions. Do you not think it damaging to the cause that most arguments take the form of playing right into the partisan war? It surely doesn't help that the other side is entrenched in opposition, which then goads further engagements in the vicious cycle. And I think this is no accident: I don't actually think that either side believes they can sustain a bipartisan approach to hot-button issues as it will make them appear weak. I was speaking with a couple of political philosophy professors recently about this and their assessment is that the center has been so totally obliterated that only extremist positions on both sides seem to be politically tenable. Maybe that should be the target of ire for climate-change advocacy, since it appears to be the main culprit preventing discussion. Maybe they should have demanded that Hillary run on a campaign finance reform platform, like Bernie did. Trump's "clean the swamp" act got him votes, but the fear was that he didn't really mean it. Why are Democratic candidates not running on a similar platform, but with the proviso that they actually mean it?

These many issues are directly related to the questions I was asking you, but because trench warfare is all most people seem up for I fear that nothing will be done that requires cooperation. Most progress will come from the private sector, and I'm sad to be saying it because I do think that government could be a powerful tool for this. Centralizing resources for big projects is exactly what strong central government should be good at, and the fact that it isn't even good at that right now frankly reminds me of SW: Episode 1's galactic senate. Sorry for the long post...

[DonaldD]

You conflate the political and the journalistic with the scientific.  Don't do this... it's straight up Crunchian.

Don't quote Al Gore; don't quote some random 'science journalist' on a website.

There is no hard and fast 10-year window.  Every year, every moment without action increases, incrementally, future costs. A ten year window is just the accumulation of all those incremental costs.

As for solution proposals, they come in many forms - NOT just focused on C02 emission reductions (although that is likely where the largest opportunities lie as far as future cost reductions).  Adaption proposals are also being investigated. Refugee and migration policies are being debated. Land reclamation projects are being studied, as are different carbon capture methods. That YOU are focusing exclusively on the CO2 reduction debate doesn't mean other avenues are not also being investigated and debated.

But CO2 emission reductions simply have to occur, unless we want to commit to much higher future costs.

[Fenring]

You conflate the political and the journalistic with the scientific.  Don't do this... it's straight up Crunchian.

It's not a good sign when pursuing real causes of phenomena is called conflating politics with science. You brought up the migrant problem yourself, and in my addressing it you seem not to like where it led. It's not my fault that all of these realms get mixed up, and yes, bad journalism too is at fault for much of the partisan divide. Trying to segregate these issues from each other is exactly why we're in this situation.

[Crunch]

In 2008, Science Daily reported on a study that attributed the decline in Great Lakes water levels to global warming. The researchers who conducted the study said that the drop “raised concern because the declines are consistent with many climate change predictions.”

In 2009, Columbia University’s Earth Institute informed us that “most climate models suggest that we may see declines in lake levels over the next 100 years; one suggests that we may see declines of up to 8.2 feet.”

In 2011, the Union of Concern Scientists said that “scientists expect water levels in the Great Lakes to drop in both summer and winter, with the greatest declines occurring in Lakes Huron and Michigan.”

In 2013, the Natural Resources Defense Council said that “it’s no secret that, partially due to climate change, the water levels in the Great Lakes are getting very low.”

That same year, Think Progress reported that “Several different climate models for the Great Lakes region all predict that lake levels will decline over the next century.”

The problem:

The very next year, however, water levels started rising.

So the model s and the consensus all say the lake levels will decline but it goes up instead. What to do? Obviously:

So what are scientists saying now? Simple. They’re now claiming that the fall and rise of Great Lakes’ water levels are due to climate change.

If the lake levels go up or down, doesn’t matter now. Literally anything you can think of “proves” global warming.  They call this “science”.

[TheDeamon]

What has to be proven is the theory that human activity is the primary, or sole driver, of climate change now.

But why does that have to be proven before a debate on social policy can be had. Even without proof a green economy has a lot going for it.
My guess is that the countries that get their first are going to be the 'winners' as it concerns future economic power.

That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them. Now as to nations like Japan which are lacking in such energy reserves, "going green" obviously makes sense, even China for that matter, while they're rich in coal, they don't have much in the way of oil(outside the disputed South China Sea).

Also there is the potential 800 pound gorilla in the room in the form of fusion power. We might still be 50 years out, or we could be 10 years or even 100 years from viable commercial fusion power. But the moment that one hits the scene, everything else before it becomes relegated to being a supplemental power source.

And if water levels are increasing should we not be thinking of ways to better protect the coast lines. Or do we wait until we have proof that human activity caused it?

I think several of us have already been very clear on this one. The politicians are another matter. But honestly, when the Democrats put emphasis on funding anything but adaptation efforts, it tends to call into question where their own priorities lie as well. It seems the Dems have started to catch on to this bit, and they've started work on it in the past 5 to 10 years. But it is a comparatively recent shift on their part. IT still largely takes the form of lip service, IMO. I'm still waiting on the proposals for state/federal level construction moratoriums in areas likely to become hazardous due to climate change, barring efforts being made to mitigate the risks specific to that location.

No, you don't get to build that $23 million dollar development in a tidal floodplain that is predicted to be innundated in 20 years, unless you "build up" the area in such a way that those homes/businesses are going to be safe from such an occurrence.

[TheDrake]

That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?

[Fenring]

That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?

The presupposition (in Randian terms) that self-interest will also tend to yield behavior benefiting the world at large will not bear itself out in reality much of the time. Maybe sometimes it will. More often I think it may create what appears to be short-term benefit with long-term catastrophe. In the particular case here, even if there are some observable pros to transitioning they either will or will not outweight the apparents cons to the parties involved.

[TheDrake]

It is a value judgement, on an individual basis. I haven't installed solar on my home because that one installation gives me personally very little benefit on its own. Traditional ROI fails because it would take years to break even - and that's with some government subsidy. I do drive an electric car, but more because I liked its features and not because I wanted to reduce my exhaust.

This is where I think government serves a purpose in helping to apply externality cost to the individuals who are making the decision. Just try to raise tax on gas, and you get demonstrations in the street (at least in France.) Subsidies create less outrage, but also follow uphill battles because it ultimately must result in cuts or taxes somewhere else.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to be precise about the benefits. How much less asthma would there be? How long would it take? How many more oil spills from pipelines, platforms, and tankers should we allow for?

Then you are still stuck with the potential free rider problem, where one group of people does all this by national policy but other groups of people do not.

[Wayward Son]

Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

[TheDeamon]

That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?

Is it truly cheaper though?

As to respiratory health and protection of water resources, THAT is another issue, and stands apart from the AGW discussion. People trying to tie the two together are doing a disservice to society by doing so.

[TheDeamon]

Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

[TheDrake]

That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?

Is it truly cheaper though?

As to respiratory health and protection of water resources, THAT is another issue, and stands apart from the AGW discussion. People trying to tie the two together are doing a disservice to society by doing so.

I'm not tying it together, I'm saying it stands alone. I can't prove it empirically in a way that wouldn't be disregarded, so I'm not going to try. I did find some quick numbers, but making the quotes and links when I don't think it helps the discussion is more work than I want to sign up for.

I'm not only talking about cost balancing - like direct medical costs for asthma treatment versus the cost of switching X power plants out. I'm talking about quality of life for not having to carry an inhaler in the first place. I'm talking about the quality of life to not have to hide indoors on bad air quality days. I'm talking about the value of not destroying wildlife. Deepwater costs get calculated for its impact on fishing, but not for its impact on non-economic wildlife. You can disagree with that treatment, but ask yourself if somebody offered to create a "thing" in your town that would generate $100K in revenue but result in $15k worth of medical costs for the population - would you vote to install it?

[Wayward Son]

Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

And what do you think fishing will be like while those without the old adaptations die off? 

Check out how well it worked out 252 million years ago.

[TheDeamon]

I'm not tying it together, I'm saying it stands alone. I can't prove it empirically in a way that wouldn't be disregarded, so I'm not going to try. I did find some quick numbers, but making the quotes and links when I don't think it helps the discussion is more work than I want to sign up for.

I'm not only talking about cost balancing - like direct medical costs for asthma treatment versus the cost of switching X power plants out. I'm talking about quality of life for not having to carry an inhaler in the first place. I'm talking about the quality of life to not have to hide indoors on bad air quality days. I'm talking about the value of not destroying wildlife. Deepwater costs get calculated for its impact on fishing, but not for its impact on non-economic wildlife. You can disagree with that treatment, but ask yourself if somebody offered to create a "thing" in your town that would generate $100K in revenue but result in $15k worth of medical costs for the population - would you vote to install it?

Fact: A lot of the particulate matter tied to transportation in the United States actually has very little to do with the engine, and it used to be much worse in prior decades as well. It seems that driving over sand and gravel at high rates of speed tends to loft the stuff airborne where it can then cause respiratory distress for others. Changing from Petrol to NG, or even electric isn't going to eliminate that.

Yes, it can cut down on ozone(well, except for where power transmission and assorted factors don't play into it), and other emission byproducts from internal combustion engine, but that also points back to "that's an emissions control argument" on the part of such vehicles. Not grounds to ban them because they emit CO2.

[TheDrake]

Fact: in urban centers where pollution from traffic is most concentrated, there isn't a lot of flying gravel and sand from high rates of speed.

[Crunch]

A 2018 study by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food looked not just at plastic waste, but also at climate-change damage, ozone depletion, human toxicity and other indicators. It found you must reuse an organic cotton shopping bag 20,000 times before it will have less climate damage than a plastic bag.

If we use the same shopping bag every single time we go to the store, twice every week, it will still take 191 years before the overall environmental effect of using the cotton bag is less than if we had just used plastic.

But the global warming crowd won’t care about that. When the rubber meets the road, it really is about telling you how to live every aspect of your life. Global warming is the excuse to do it. That’s all

[Wayward Son]

Well, when the Republicans plan is "deny until we hang ourselves," it really doesn't matter how badly the global warming crowd is doing, does it?   

We'll do what we can until we get a better alternative.

(Besides, the plastic grocery bag bans are primarily for addressing the plastic crisis, not global warming, IIRC.)

[Crunch]

Only 12 years until it’s too late. Right?  Am I right?

[Wayward Son]

Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

[DJQuag]

Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

You are literally making stuff up.

The last time we had 1700 ppm level was far, far longer ago then a million years ago. The highest levels ever weren't much higher then that and they were reached during the Cambrian and Triassic periods. For reference, the Triassic was between 250 and 200 million years ago and was when the dinosaurs started their ascension to dominant lifeform

Evolution and natural selection doesn't at all work in the way you're implying here. Yes, some animals would survive in that environment. They'd be fast reproducing and relatively simple animals like rats and cockroaches.

Bears, whales, deer, etc are not going to "remember" what life was like 200 million years ago and just adapt

[TheDeamon]

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

You are literally making stuff up.

The last time we had 1700 ppm level was far, far longer ago then a million years ago.

Good thing I said "over a million years ago" rather than "a million years ago" then. But going by Smithsonian I guess I need to change it to read "over 3 million years ago" to be more correct with current levels. Color me silly.

Most life of earth isn't going to be bothered overly much by 200ppm or 2000ppm CO2, plant life will certainly notice and enjoy the difference though.

Acidification is a concern, but I do think it is being overblown. Most of the things being "Adversely impacted by that" happen to be very same life forms you later talk about having very short lifespans and a tendency to reproduce rapidily.

The highest levels ever weren't much higher then that and they were reached during the Cambrian and Triassic periods. For reference, the Triassic was between 250 and 200 million years ago and was when the dinosaurs started their ascension to dominant lifeform

Evolution and natural selection doesn't at all work in the way you're implying here. Yes, some animals would survive in that environment. They'd be fast reproducing and relatively simple animals like rats and cockroaches.

Crocodiles and Alligators didn't seem to have much trouble adapting. I don't think they qualify as "relatively simple" and they're not considered fast reproducing either last I checked, they're also considered to be millions of years old as a species, ditto for several species of sharks.

Bears, whales, deer, etc are not going to "remember" what life was like 200 million years ago and just adapt

I think you grossly underestimate nature. Yes, there would likely be a massive die off, but there also would be something that would step in to fill that niche in relatively short order. Maybe not fast enough to satisfy us humans, but soon enough on an evolutionary time scale. (But there also is nothing stopping us humans from intervening to ensure that many species survive such outcomes, so we don't have to wait centuries for nature to run its course)

But of course there also is that whole matter of the dionsaurs to consider as well. They lived on a much warmer planet earth. Some of them were truly massive and consumed mind boggling amounts of vegetation in order to support their respective life cycles(doubly so when you consider the comparably large carnivores). A world that can sustain a Brontosaurus doesn't seem to me to be a world that is hostile to all life. Given that the world in question also had to support sufficient plant life for said Brontosaurus to graze upon.

I'd be grossly disappointed if the human race couldn't figure out how to survive in such an environment. That strikes me as an utter failure of imagination and engineering. If proto-pine trees from 60 Million years ago can survive all the rampant extreme weather that a 3 degree(Celsius) warmer world brings to bear, why can't human civilization?

People need to seriously get over themselves. The worst case scenario isn't likely to be as bad as many people want to make it out to be. Contrary to Mad Max advocates, the climate record doesn't suggest a warmer earth leads to a planetary desert, rather it results in a planetary tropical zone that extends well in to Canada. Better have plenty of bug spray, you're going to need it. Yes, methodological changes would be happen over time as to where and how crops are grown, but that's  a far cry from "we're going to be unable to grow food to support any kind of meaningful human population."

Unless of course you want to claim dinosaurs are a myth.

[Crunch]

Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

[DJQuag]

Oh, cool. My bad. I should have known when you said over a million years ago it was meant to refer to 200 million and not 2-3 million years ago. Totally my fault there.

There will be a whole lot of lifeforms bothered by the 2000 ppm figure you just put up. 200, less so, and an increasing severity inbetween.

Most all animals are very finely tuned to fit into a specific niche in a specific type of environment. When conditions change too fast in too many ways they don't tend to throw out a polar bear Jesus who magically remembers the genes from a few hundred thousand or million years ago. They just go extinct. There are, of course, outliers. Such as rats and roaches and, yes, crocodilians. Crocodilians are both more fast at reproducing then you apparently think, (alligator females lay an average of 35-50 eggs a year, a number that can go up to 90) and quite simple in what they do. Animals need to drink water. Crocs have adapted to sit in warm or warmish water and wait for said animals to go get a drink and then ambush them.

It's a really good strategy. So good that even with our big brains crocodilians manage to kill over a thousand people a year on the lower estimates. Like the sharks (who have a good sense of smell and sharp teeth and a willingness to at least to take a bite to see if it's tasty) they can lay claim to a simple but reliable way of life. They haven't changed because they haven't needed to change.

On a lighter note, there wasn't a Brontosaurus. The appropriate name is Apatosaurus. Although there have been some rumblings about a supposed new species they want to give the name Brontosaurus to. Yes. I was that kid who was really into non-avian dinosaurs.

And while I can't talk for everyone, I have never said all of life is at stake. Just the complex life. I mean, a very large proportion of the Earth's population lives within 20 miles of a seacoast. The richest country in the world routinely chooses not to handle homelessness. In what scenario do you imagine that all of those people who are displaced by rising sea levels are welcomed warmly with a job and a home?

So, there are extinctions and then there are *extinctions.*

Here's some info on extinction events.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

What is interesting is by the definition of it we'rein the middle of the human extinction event. Whether through hunting (North America fauna was comparable to Africa's til humans showed up. Australia was like a school shooting.) or just us claiming land or changing the climate, we are literally in the middle of a human centred extinction event.

[DJQuag]

Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

You forgot to mention Quora.

[Wayward Son]

Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

You'd better check that strawman for mice, Crunch.  One of them is liable to bite you.

[Crunch]

Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

You'd better check that strawman for mice, Crunch.  One of them is liable to bite you.

Every bit of it is supported up thread multiple times. Pretending not to notice that is simple denial

[TheDrake]

No climate scientist has ever used your hyperbolic "completely uninhabitable" strawman. They have said it is too late to reverse effects that could be considered very bad outcomes, and they have detailed those outcomes.

[D.W.]

Scientists?  No, but I have heard this spouted from people online.  Never someone *I* know, but the kooks are out there.  No shock these are the ones deniers want to use as poster children for their opposition.   

[Crunch]

No true climate scientist have made such doomsday predictions. Really. Logical fallacies abound.

So, everyone in the media is lying is about the impact. It’s great we got guys like you here to expose us to the truth. What are these much milder consequences of global warming if unchecked?

[TheDeamon]

No climate scientist has ever used your hyperbolic "completely uninhabitable" strawman. They have said it is too late to reverse effects that could be considered very bad outcomes, and they have detailed those outcomes.

Al Gore did, about 30 years ago. Many of the political class and the punditry have likewise made similar allusions in the past. And likely will in the future.

[DJQuag]

No true climate scientist have made such doomsday predictions. Really. Logical fallacies abound.

So, everyone in the media is lying is about the impact. It’s great we got guys like you here to expose us to the truth. What are these much milder consequences of global warming if unchecked?

If you're human, the idea of it being much milder is pretty absurd.

Sea levels will rise. As I said above, a very large proportion of the human population lIves pretty close to the shoreline. So they are all going to flee and hide. Where do they live? Where do they work?

Climate change will be extensive as well. Places depended upon to grow or raise food for vast populations become completely unable to.

I am not at all denying your and Daemons assertions that humanity and multicellular life will survive. I'm saying that your assertions that we'll all be cool and dandy is transparent bullshti.

The food chain for the human population is a whole lot thinner then most people think.

[TheDrake]

Scientist : You should really trim that tree branch that's about to fall on your house.

Denialists: yeah that's what you've been saying for the past three years.

[TheDeamon]

Sea levels will rise. As I said above, a very large proportion of the human population lIves pretty close to the shoreline. So they are all going to flee and hide. Where do they live? Where do they work?

Climate change will be extensive as well. Places depended upon to grow or raise food for vast populations become completely unable to.

Good thing we have silos full of raw foodstuffs waiting for use, enough to last a couple years IIRC.

Also a good thing that catastrophic increases in sea level also is something hotly contested by science. We're not talking about sea levels increasing by feet in the span of months or even years. You're talking about decades.

For advanced economies, that is time enough to either adapt or relocate in a more controlled manner. Yes even a 1 foot increase is going to have a more significant impact than many think because of that whole tidal/wave motion aspect(it can "climb"), but we still cycle back to: It can be disputed that the rate of increase is going to exceed our ability to adapt.

3rd World Shanty-towns building on a coastal flood plain are entirely different matter, those need urgent attention. But they needed that years ago, and spending Trillions on Green Energy sources today is going to do exactly zero towards helping those people if the doom and gloom scenarios pan out. They'll be flooded out either way at this point.

[TheDrake]

"Good thing we have silos full of raw foodstuffs waiting for use, enough to last a couple years IIRC."

Where do you get that idea? While it is true that western nations have extra food, there are parts of the world that live from harvest to harvest.

[Crunch]

Scientist : You should really trim that tree branch that's about to fall on your house.

Denialists: yeah that's what you've been saying for the past three years.

Narrator: the tree branch is 12 inches long and 1/8 inch in diameter.

[Crunch]

No true climate scientist have made such doomsday predictions. Really. Logical fallacies abound.

So, everyone in the media is lying is about the impact. It’s great we got guys like you here to expose us to the truth. What are these much milder consequences of global warming if unchecked?

If you're human, the idea of it being much milder is pretty absurd.

Sea levels will rise. As I said above, a very large proportion of the human population lIves pretty close to the shoreline. So they are all going to flee and hide. Where do they live? Where do they work?

Climate change will be extensive as well. Places depended upon to grow or raise food for vast populations become completely unable to.

I am not at all denying your and Daemons assertions that humanity and multicellular life will survive. I'm saying that your assertions that we'll all be cool and dandy is transparent bullshti.

The food chain for the human population is a whole lot thinner then most people think.

Actually, I’m saying humanity cannot accidentally and unintentionally terraform a entire planet with minute amounts of a fractional trace gas. Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology. As the planet goes through its cycles, we may have to adjust our lives - or maybe not if the pause and recent cooling trend holds.

[D.W.]

Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology.

Defeatist. 

We'll never terraform LV-426 at this rate.

[rightleft22]

Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology.

Been hearing that argument a lot lately. Not just about Climate.
Not so much defeatism and giving up but as a 'reason' or excuse to continue current behavior.
ts defeatism but not quite as those often using such arguments continue to be striving for the gold.  Where all going to die so why do we bother
The question being even if the outcome is unlikely to change is it still worthwhile doing better as we learn better?
Or Climate change cant be changed so let me get mine while the getting is good....

 

[Pete at Home]

I think you grossly underestimate nature.

So how do you estimate nature will recycle CO2 to O2 on the same scale it always has when we cut down the forests and raze the coral reefs?  Nature uses natural mechanisms, no? Or do you posit a supernatural nature?

[TheDrake]

It isn't broken.
I didn't do it.
It was broken when I got there.
I'm not fixing it unless everyone else helps.

[rightleft22]

My parents wanted to insure they left their children a inheritance, today that desire is shifting to spend it all before I die.
The climate debate is amounting to the same thing? 

[DJQuag]

I think you grossly underestimate nature.

So how do you estimate nature will recycle CO2 to O2 on the same scale it always has when we cut down the forests and raze the coral reefs?  Nature uses natural mechanisms, no? Or do you posit a supernatural nature?

I don't know how nature will do it, but this technology looks interesting. I'm not sure if it's feasible large scale, but still interesting.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-41816332

Though the whole process of pump CO2 into the air, then destroy nature's way of removing CO2, then frantically try to technology up a solution reminds me of someone who tells a small lie and then gradually has to keep telling bigger and bigger lies just to cover the original up.

[Crunch]

Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology.

Been hearing that argument a lot lately. Not just about Climate.
Not so much defeatism and giving up but as a 'reason' or excuse to continue current behavior.
ts defeatism but not quite as those often using such arguments continue to be striving for the gold.  Where all going to die so why do we bother
The question being even if the outcome is unlikely to change is it still worthwhile doing better as we learn better?
Or Climate change cant be changed so let me get mine while the getting is good....

Or climate change has nothing to do with human activity so quit trying to run every aspect of my life.

[TheDrake]

It's all about trying to run your life, Crunch. That's why we don't let people burn their garbage in the back yard, dump motor oil into storm drains, or dump motor home waste in the Walmart parking lot. It's all about you.

It certainly can't have anything to do with risks to health and property, as well as taking proactive steps to preserve and improve the environment that everyone has to live in.

[rightleft22]

Or climate change has nothing to do with human activity so quit trying to run every aspect of my life.

Does a ant or worm impact its environment and the nature of soil? Does humanity and its actions stand apart from nature?
Is the argument that because climate change has nothing to do with human activity we can do nothing about it we should continue on as were doing even if we can do better.
If we know eating healthy is better for us (better quality time) even though in the end we die should we eat heather?

Extinction events happen, at a personal level we will all experience one. The question for me isn't how I might change that but how I might like the last years to look, mine and the earths left behind.
I choose clean air, clean water and green grass... I will vote and spend my money with that in mind. Will that impact the end result? No, however I prefer the journey to the destination.