|
Agreed. Question though. Do you mean "could be" in an abstract sense or concrete?
Because the concrete sense would require a billion or two people to significantly lower their standard of living.
No, it wouldn't.
All that is needed is to switch from power sources that add carbon to the atmosphere (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas) to power sources which do not (e.g. solar, wind, hydro, nuclear). This process is already underway and accelerating every year because renewable power is now cheaper than fossil fuel power for much of the planet, and will soon be so everywhere.
True as far as it goes but the current trend isn't done getting worse yet. With the current CO2 load in the atmosphere it will be another 50 to 100 years before all the damage is done.
Actually, much longer. The time frame you are describing covers fast feedbacks like atmospheric water vapor. Slow feedbacks like ice albedo will take thousands of years to play out.
That said, the fast feedbacks are the primary concern because rapid climate change is much more difficult to adapt to than a slow process drawn out over millennia.
So yes, for most practical purposes, if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere right now global warming would continue to slowly get worse for several decades... but that would be nothing compared to if we continue emitting CO2 at anything like our current rate through 2100. If we stopped right now we might stabilize at ~1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures. That isn't going to happen. If we ramp down emissions as quickly as feasibly possible we can probably stabilize at ~2 C above pre-industrial. If we continue as we have been through 2100 then we're looking at a 5+ C situation... where emissions WILL go down because we will have wiped out a significant chunk of the human population.
Actually, it was off to a hot start, at least globally.
Hottest January
Warmest February
Record warm MarchHigh (or more accurately, what we used to call normal) snowfall did help with the California drought, but that's probably temporary.
You have to remember, I do localized temperature analysis...
So my temps and weather recording is for the stations which I hike out to and collect.
Currently, it warmed up, but over the past two months it's been rather chilly (colder than usual) for our records.
For our area, it's turning into a rather cold summer. It's been more like a prolonged spring at this point. It is kind of odd in that manner, in all honesty.
Now, whether that holds true for other places like Iran, or China...I don't take or record the records there.
My stuff is sent in for analysis by the people who look at those things.
I don't do that.
Local data, by itself, is nearly irrelevant when talking about global warming. There's enough local and regional variation that one area can be colder than normal while the world's average temperature is still setting record highs.
Just to continue:
April
May
JuneThese are all breaking last year's records. 14 months in a row of record heat.
That is true.
However, there IS correct data analysis and FALSE data analysis. I can actually say there are those who are spreading false information out there from one fact.
They distribute monthly data via several organizations. I take a particularly unique interest in my area of observation.
Recently, one of those has my area as being hotter than it is. I've pointed this out because of how brazen and how incredulous I was that they'd even distribute something like this.
That is false information.
Seeing that makes me wonder about the rest of the information that they are putting out.
Those I do associate with in the community say it's a disconnect between the media and the scientists. It doesn't invalidate science, it does mean that the "popular" media interpretations are not in sync with a lot of the science out there. They get away with it because, in reality, none of the public actually sees the data from each local area that is sent in and analyzed. 99.9% of the public will take it at face value that our area has been the hottest it has been over the past six months, even though that is blatantly untrue.
On the otherhand, NONE of the actual scientists that take our information are part of that group spreading the false data. I've mentioned several times before about the political vs. the scientific, and how MOST (aka a majority) of those listened to are political rather than having anything to do with science.
The false information seems to be given out by the political scientists...aka...those who are NOT neutral on the research and scientific slant, but instead have a political agenda to try to accomplish.
It happens on both sides of the equation. There are those who want to prove that nothing is happening.
What's ironic is no one actually listens when someone in the field talks about it, instead telling them there is NO way they could know better then the politicians and political papers.
Much of it probably is due to the fact that most of those out there who are doing research, or papers (I don't do papers, or analysis, I'm strictly volunteer in helping gather data) do very specific and local areas of research. For example, one might do research on why the ice in Greenland is melting at a different rate than many models predict, and why that is occurring. Another may do why the Ice sheets on the Canadian side of the artic are melting at a different rate than previously seen in prior years. Yet another may measure the changing tidal limits in Miami in regards to resolving installing pumps to counter a rising ocean tide.
Only a few actually compile everything from everywhere and do the actual analysis of it. Because many only are involved with the specific and local research and data, people think the politicians have a better view of it than the scientists.
Climate change actually IS NOT a political thing, but a majority of what is discussed unfortunately IS political.
For my part, I've summarized my local information, as that's the only part I can actually verify (I'm not responsible for the data collected worldwide, nor do I actually work on analyzing it or anything else). I can't speak for the world, just the local data. Obviously the rest is my opinion, but from the viewpoint on how I've seen our data either utilized or manipulated, and the interactions I have with other figures in the field at conferences and other ventures. So, you are right, local data by itself is not really telling what is happening globally, but how that information is used can reflect which information is more trustworthy than other information.
;
;
;
;
;
ON an unassociated note, in regards to what Quark stated, in some thoughts, if climate change IS caused by mankind, we ARE in the worst case scenario and any realist would say there is very little chance of changing that (short of killing half the population of the Earth). Even if every Western nation stops right now and does everything right in regards to Atmospheric change...there's no way China or other nations are changing to accommodate our views, which is why realistically, if it's manmade, get ready for the long haul.
The ironic thing...even if it is NOT caused by mankind...the result probably will be the same.
That makes sense if one thinks about it...because of uncontrollable factors either beyond mankind's control naturally(if it's not caused by mankind) or by choice (China and other non-western nations which have their carbon footprint on the rise with no end in sight).
In the end, we are in for the ride despite anything we do (that doesn't mean do nothing, I currently am connected heavily with Solar Power in promoting it, so, yes, my views are also biased to a degree, or would be considered bias, because of my connections to that). At this point, in my opinion (as if it has to be said), the causes are not really what are going to matter as much as what we do in the future to deal with the difficulties that may arise due to differences in the climate on a global scale.
Yes, since shortly after we discovered the use of fire.I am asking you:
1) Do you think the world is undergoing human caused climate change?
I see a "yes" in there, but the glibness of your answer tells me no.
Since it's the internet, I'm going to assume that the sarcasm in your answer is the more truthful part. I'll read your posts with the understanding that you're a climate change denier from here on out.
Unless you want to clarify with a non-glib answer?
Something short. No attempt at a joke, no rambling off about how you don't like Al Gore's tie, etc.
Even if every Western nation stops right now and does everything right in regards to Atmospheric change...there's no way China or other nations are changing to accommodate our views
I think there's a good chance that Chinese action on climate may get a boost from the Chinese need to clean up the air in their cities. Poor air quality is a huge and growing Chinese public health burden and (it seems from afar) one where there is more public pressure and awareness than on climate.
But making progress on one issue will help the other.
Or at least, my inner optimist thinks that achieving climate progress due to the impetus of healthy air to breathe is the path of least resistance in China right now.
(A Global Burden of Disease chart is about halfway down this page.)
|
|
So how are you going to feed 7+ billion people without using fossil fuels? How do you keep the lights on at night During calm hot weather? During calm frigid weather? During the dry season? When there is no wet season for a year or two or three?
It will take a massive push into nuclear power.
So... you are aware that your position is nonsense?
Yes, a massive push into nuclear power would indeed prevent all the supposed 'problems' you list.
As would the large increases in wind and solar power I cited in the post you are ostensibly 'replying' to.
Given current market trends, the most likely path seems to be natural gas, wind, and solar rapidly replacing coal (indeed, this is already happening). Then continued growth of wind and solar, along with hydro and some nuclear (but not a lot unless its costs come down significantly... unlikely for such a long established technology), will similarly replace natural gas and oil as electric vehicles proliferate.
A switch-over of such speed and scale that it is without precedent outside of global war.
Simply false. Humans converted from getting virtually none of their power from coal in 1860 to virtually all of it in 1910.
We, as a species, are decades from being able to roll out that kind of change.
We started about five years ago. Most projections of completion (i.e. neglible carbon emissions) range from twenty to fifty years.
ON an unassociated note, in regards to what Quark stated, in some thoughts, if climate change IS caused by mankind, we ARE in the worst case scenario and any realist would say there is very little chance of changing that (short of killing half the population of the Earth). Even if every Western nation stops right now and does everything right in regards to Atmospheric change...there's no way China or other nations are changing to accommodate our views, which is why realistically, if it's manmade, get ready for the long haul.
I want to say, "Woo hoo!! Someone else gets it!", but this isn't the topic for "woo hoo!!" Still it's nice to see someone else can step out of the argument, assess the facts, and have a sane response too.
None of those 'facts' are true... and thus the 'sane response' based on them... isn't.
China and 'other non-Western nations' are already making major strides towards addressing climate change. Every generally recognized nation on the planet signed on to the Paris agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
You can get a breakdown of climate change prevention activities by country here.
China is already doing better than many "Western nations". In short, the time of the 'it does not matter what we do because those others over there will not help' excuse has passed. All of the major greenhouse gas emitters have begun massive efforts to cut emissions.
No need to kill off half the population. Simply going with the most economically viable options (i.e. wind and solar) is all that is needed.
IMHO our best case ended over 40 years ago. That is when the fossil fuel companies realized that there was a problem and shoved the data under the rug saying "Nope! There is no problem!". Now the question is, what can we do to blunt the damage that our children will face?
|
|
Will it happen? Not for half a century at least.
Further, you then go on to say,
Most projections of completion (i.e. neglible carbon emissions) range from twenty to fifty years.Um, yeah. Fifty years. That's... what... I... just... said.
Seriously?
If you really believe "20 to 50 years" and "half a century at least" are the same thing, then reasoned discussion seems unlikely.
Of course it'll be too late in fifteen days, let alone fifty years.
Curiouser and curiouser. I'm not aware of ANY side of the global warming debate which makes such a ridiculous claim. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the human race will pass the point of no return on our own extinction in two weeks.
And as for your alternate energy ideas (wind, solar, nuclear) fixing things. Too bad so much of humanity lives in areas that are alternate energy resource poor.
You mean the tiny percentages of the human race living in places like Alaska and Siberia? Yes, those are relatively poor locations for solar power... but actually pretty good for wind power. In any case, we have these things called transmission lines which can provide power to the remote fringes of the world from centralized generation sites.
Most people live where there is plenty of sunlight to provide warmth and allow plants (and animals that rely on those plants) to grow. That same sunlight can provide electricity. Ergo, the idea that large portions of the population live away from renewable resources is just illogical. The same sunlight required for a large human population to LIVE in a region can now provide the electricity those humans need.
Here's an 8-page PDF detailing one aspect of how bad things are LINK. If the link is broken, just Google "Biology in the Anthropocene" along with "Kidwell" and take a peek at Figure 1 in that paper. That one figure, based on proper analysis of real data, says it all.
A single image says everything? Well, that explains much of your zero dimensional world-view. Especially given that the image directly contradicts your position.
Take a look at the right hand side of the chart, representing the future. It shows two sets of data splitting off in to possible results. Temperature (the values higher on the chart) either continuing to grow up to ~4 C by 2100 OR levelling off at roughly current levels below 2 C. This is the scenario you have claimed is no longer possible. Your supposed source says that it still is. We can still prevent global temperatures from rising to dangerous levels.
Likewise, the lower set shows ocean pH either levelling off or continuing to plummet. Both that factor and the temperature are directly related to our CO2 emissions... which we still have time to bring under control and prevent the changes from growing much worse.
[China and 'other non-Western nations' are already making major strides towards addressing climate change. Every generally recognized nation on the planet signed on to the Paris agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
You can get a breakdown of climate change prevention activities by country here.
China is already doing better than many "Western nations". In short, the time of the 'it does not matter what we do because those others over there will not help' excuse has passed. All of the major greenhouse gas emitters have begun massive efforts to cut emissions.
No need to kill off half the population. Simply going with the most economically viable options (i.e. wind and solar) is all that is needed.
You are REALLY optimistic about China and India...in fact, I'd call it fantasy land...
But hey...you can believe what you want about China...did you know they also have "facts" put out by China that there are NO political prisoners, and that they are more free than the US?
I mean, as long as you are going to believe their propaganda instead of what we are seeing on the ground and what seems to be indicated on what is actually occurring in China.
(recently had one associate of a professor of ours decide they never wanted to go back due to health concerns on fake food, environment, and other issues which they state are WAAAY out of hand there).
I am a HUGE proponent of Solar energy (in fact, due to my connections and involvement with it people would say I am a biased section instead of being anywhere close to neutral).
I am one that actually thinks that we could easily power everything in the world off of Solar energy. I think it's the most feasible thing...and if we could get people to switch, I think it would be absolutely awesome (and great for business even!).
We are already past the turning point according to the worst case models. If those models are correct, it doesn't matter what anyone does now, it's a done deal.
Now if those worst case scenarios are NOT right (afterall, New York isn't underwater right now, so that's a good sign), I agree, using solar would be terrific and I think it would work (as I've stated repeatedly in other posts).
However, we can't even get a huge percentage to switch in the West, much less anywhere else. My optimism for getting that achieved...is actually not all that optimistic right now.
As for Alaska and Siberia, those places aren't bad for solar right now. In fact, we have an engine that can actually store up the energy (without the chemicals from batteries, the actually knowledge is confidential to corporate interests so can't really expound how it works, except that it is 99% natural with only natural emissions and NONE of it is CO2 or anything carbon) that they can utilize half the year after the half year of non-stop light they get (and that half year would be better for solar than anything else!).
Even without the energy preservation engines, they still could cut emmisions by half simply by going solar with the current generation of solar panels (excellent items, can be utilized even on cloudy and hidden sunlight days!).
However, with our success rates and getting people to switch to solar in the Sunbelt, much less elsewhere...my thoughts are not as enthusiastic as yours. In fact, the ONLY way to turn the tide at this point, in my opinion is to get rid of over half the pollution, which would mean getting rid of half the polluters.
Of course, if we go by the worst polluters first, perhaps half the population wouldn't be needed, only the richest, and biggest polluters overall.
That's saying of course, depending on what's actually happening. There is more controversy in the field than what the media presents. Worst case scenarios predicted a decade ago OBVIOUSLY did not occur, which means the worst case probably are not good indicators on why or how it's occurring. On the otherhand, there are lots of other scenarios and predictions...and depending on which one is correct (or one ascribes to), probably could determine what could or would be done. If one feels that it is mostly natural phenomena and humans have a minimal impact on Climate Change (there are theories out there) then it doesn't matter WHAT happens to the population, there is only a minimal amount of control we have anyways.
Of interest though (as per a FEW historical estimates), much of the extent of pollution we have today is due to having a large population. In percentages, the Native Americans of centuries ago, per capita, polluted more heavily overall than most individuals in the US today. They polluted the streams and woods with body wastes, and their fires were pretty major in polluting on an indivual status as well.
There were NOT as many of them, and hence, though on an individual level they may have lent more pollution (in regards to some historical estimates), they didn't have the impact that 300 million US citizens (much less how much the rest of the world population has increased) has.
Adding, hence, that when one looks at pollution, and if one feels theories regarding pollution and climate change are heavily connected...than one should probably look at the connections between population and pollution, which is where my half the population remark came in. (and, I'd probably be one of the unlucky ones to bite it in such a drastic population reduction anyways).
An another note, did my usual data collection this past week. Still cooler overall in our region. Actually, went below freezing this past week in the area...which meant it was a little colder than even I expected.
Should have prepared better, didn't bring cold weather gear. AT least there was no snow.
However, as there were also forest fires, I didn't go to the areas where the forest fires were, and they can affect local weather as well. It may be a side effect of them. I'm pretty certain if measurements had been taken locally inside the fires...it would have shown a HUGE increase instead.
:)
Sorry, just a little bit of humor on that last paragraph...though probably not so funny in other ways (and regardless of what one thinks, hopefully we can agree on...here's a big thanks to all those fire fighters out there)
|
|
You are REALLY optimistic about China and India...in fact, I'd call it fantasy land...
I mean, as long as you are going to believe their propaganda instead of what we are seeing on the ground and what seems to be indicated on what is actually occurring in China.
Power plants, especially sprawling solar voltaic plants, are not exactly subtle. They can be easily seen with satellites. Likewise, actual CO2 emissions can be directly measured.
We know how much renewable power China is building (and India) and we know how much CO2 they are emitting. Both countries have begun massive renewable energy development. No propaganda involved.
We are already past the turning point according to the worst case models. If those models are correct, it doesn't matter what anyone does now, it's a done deal.
Please cite any climate model which has the extinction of the human race as a foregone conclusion based on current conditions. I am quite certain you can't, because none exist. Even with the worst case assumptions about current conditions, future feedbacks, and human impacts 'what we do' DOES still matter.
<snip other insanity (e.g. nobody is installing solar power and ancient native americans polluted more per capita than modern americans) I can't be bothered refuting>
Notice what that chart says about the current state of the worlds ocean fisheries. Did you overlook that part on purpose?
So... it is too late for stopping our carbon dioxide emissions to prevent catastrophic global warming because... overfishing.
Normally, this would be called 'moving the goalposts'. In this case, it appears that you have relocated the goalposts to a hockey rink and hoped no one would notice.
Overfishing is a serious concern... which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Yes, the chart projects two futures.
One that is best case, still bad because the CO2-driven problems (average global temperature and ocean pH) both get significantly worse than todays readings.
No... they simply don't. The temperature anomaly clearly tops out at less than 2 C above pre-industrial... which is the generally accepted 'danger limit'. As it is projecting less than dangerous levels it is not "significantly worse" than current.
However, it doesn't matter whether it is 'significant' or not. You claimed that what we do now is irrelevant. Your own chart clearly disputes that position. There are still different possible outcomes based on what we do.
Note also that the N2 values continue to climb under either scenario
Also irrelevant to global warming.
Let's say humanity somehow pulls its collective head out over the next two years and in 2025 CO2 emissions are at 1950 levels. The funny thing about chaotic systems is they don't necessarily wind back down the same way they wind up.
So?
So, on the way back down to our pre-1950 climate dynamics the global climate system might shift into another glacial maximum instead. It might not of course. The point is, we don't know.
False.
Yes, there are uncertainties in climate modelling. We do not know exactly what will happen. However, we can determine a range of possible impacts... and 1950s level CO2 emissions triggering a new glacial maximum isn't within that range. Indeed, barring some massive change (e.g. asteroid impact, human developed planetary climate control, et cetera) we won't see another glacial maximum for hundreds of thousands of years.
Is it worth it to get off our fossil fuels fix?
Yes. The economic boon to be gained by properly exploited renewable energy (meaning no hydro-power projects in the Rub' al Khali, e.g.), and especially from increasing our efficient energy use, can hardly be over-hyped. I don't think our species will get there. For sure not the easy way. But maybe in 50 years, after things have gotten bad enough, we'll learn to pull together. If for no other reason than our own individual self interest.
Apparently you missed the bit last year where every country on the planet 'pulled together' and agreed to make changes to limit global warming to less than 2C over pre-industrial. Granted, those changes have not been made yet (it's only been a year), but all of the major emitters have undertaken large scale programs which, if continued, will get us there.
As to self-interest... solar power now costs less than coal for most of the people on the planet. Within a few years it will cost less for all but a tiny fraction. We're going to stop global warming not out of 'altruism', but simply because it will cost less. No 'heroic efforts' or 'mass depopulation' required. Basic economic forces will drive the transition.
However, we can't even get a huge percentage to switch in the West, much less anywhere else. My optimism for getting that achieved...is actually not all that optimistic right now.
There actually is a big push for it in New Jersey, of all places. Instead of converting a house whole hog, the general deal is to mount solar panels to feed directly into the overal electrical grid. The homeowner in turn gets credits that would be applied to the utilities bill.
In practice this means that solar pretty much pays the entire utility cost save for the winter months.
I generally get a robocall from someone selling this to me about twice a week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, we can't even get a huge percentage to switch in the West, much less anywhere else. My optimism for getting that achieved...is actually not all that optimistic right now.There actually is a big push for it in New Jersey, of all places. Instead of converting a house whole hog, the general deal is to mount solar panels to feed directly into the overal electrical grid. The homeowner in turn gets credits that would be applied to the utilities bill.
In practice this means that solar pretty much pays the entire utility cost save for the winter months.
I generally get a robocall from someone selling this to me about twice a week.
Yeah, I'm part of the businesses trying to get people to install Solar panels and solar engines.
Most of those that aren't supported by other industries (aka, purely solar) have already gone under due to not enough business. Those that have other support, are doing okay, but even with incentives, not that many people are switching.
You'd think it would sell itself...but it's not. I think it's because the government hasn't given enough incentives (like, paying for the solar panels to be installed...for example).
The main company I'm attached to (aka, invested money into) has a branch that shows that it's only solar in regards to selling and installation, but in fact is a branch company off of a Civil Engineering and construction company (which currently is what is keeping the solar company afloat as a majority of the funds come from the Engineering company, not that someone who wasn't with the company would ever know that.).
My German connections were purely solar panels at first(and that's one place one would have thought it would be self sustaining) but now supports itself off of utilizing property management for a majority of it's income.
We've tried investing worldwide as well. I have a pretty good idea of the energy picture in China (and much of the rest of the world) right now in regards to the solar market and alternate energy installation due to that, and for solar it's not looking pretty currently.
Some other nations have better incentives than the US, but people are people and most don't see the benefits from Solar and hence don't change over at all.
I'd go more into what the company I have investments in does (as opposed to my volunteer stuff), and I really think it's at the forefront of alternate energy right now...but that would probably go too far into promotion of other businesses that are not Paizo's and hence be rude and not really in the spirit of these forums.
PS: As far as New Jersey goes, I wrote in another thread about driving in New Jersey. Nice place, everything is close enough to go to but you can still live I a more suburuban or countryside type place. Only thing I can really complain about New Jersey are the jugheads. The idea you mention that's being done in New Jersey is actually in many locations US wide. Of course, some places better than others, Nevada just ripped the rug out from under us in that regard to a small degree.
Also, up-thread I linked several video presentations (TED Talks mostly) from noted climate experts. We have passed into "worst case scenario" territory according to them. Circa 2004 to 2009, depending on which one you subscribe to the most.
TED Talks have their value, but they're basically little more than bourgeois mental masturbation to make the upper class feel good about itself. (Just look at any audience at a Ted Talk, and you'd think it was a hall of Paul Ryan interns :) It's not the place to look for any real cutting-edge controversial monologues. I watch them frequently, but try to do so with a critical eye... because there is some worth to be winnowed from the chaff.
Also, up-thread I linked several video presentations (TED Talks mostly) from noted climate experts. We have passed into "worst case scenario" territory according to them. Circa 2004 to 2009, depending on which one you subscribe to the most.TED Talks have their value, but they're basically little more than bourgeois mental masturbation to make the upper class feel good about itself. (Just look at any audience at a Ted Talk, and you'd think it was a hall of Paul Ryan interns :) It's not the place to look for any real cutting-edge controversial monologues. I watch them frequently, but try to do so with a critical eye... because there is some worth to be winnowed from the chaff.Fair point.
My reason for linking them was that they all basically agree at the most general level of climate modeling - that some version of "worst case" is already underway and won't finish working itself out for another century, at least.
BTW - a notch down are TEDx talks. They are about like reading Wikipedia to get your facts straight.
Qark Blast, can you please relink those sites and the TEDx talks again? I couldn't find them. Thanks!
|
|
Overfishing is linked to climate change via two main actions, both of which have the root cause of "too many people".
Link one is the N2 infusion into the world ocean from agrochemical runoff, and those chemicals are largely derived from fossil fuels.
Link two is the increase in CO2 driving up global temperature which puts pressure on already fully or overly-taxed ocean fisheries via thermal stress and change in ocean pH.
Neither overfishing nor nitrogen runoff contributes to global warming. They continue to be completely irrelevant to the question of whether we still have time to stop CO2 emissions before global warming reaches dangerous levels.
You are 'supporting your position' by changing it. You made (false) claims about WARMING. Nobody ever disputed that overfishing or nitrogen runoff are problems... they just aren't the problem we were actually talking about.
Who said anything about the "extinction of the human race"? Not GreyWolfLord. Not Quark. Who are you talking to?
The text I was responding to; "If those models are correct, it doesn't matter what anyone does now, it's a done deal."
The only way what we do now would not matter is if we had already reached the point of wiping out the entire human race. Otherwise, any amount of emissions reduction we achieved would result in less warming and thus less damage.
The claim that what we do now does not matter is simply false.
Also, up-thread I linked several video presentations (TED Talks mostly) from noted climate experts. We have passed into "worst case scenario" territory according to them. Circa 2004 to 2009, depending on which one you subscribe to the most.
Please cite/link just one. I've looked at various of your links and seen nothing of the kind. Nor can I see how any remotely competent climate scientist would make such a ridiculous claim.
We are nowhere near the 'worst case' for climate change. This is a problem which could potentially wipe out the human race and most other non-microbial life on the planet. While that is extremely unlikely, it COULD happen. That, is therefor, the 'worst case'... and it certainly did not happen back in 2009. Ergo, the people you are trying to paraphrase presumably meant something else.
|
|
Qark Blast, can you please relink those sites and the TEDx talks again? I couldn't find them. Thanks!
I think he means these.
Except that I can't find the 'we passed worst case in 2004 to 2009' claim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The text I was responding to; "If those models are correct, it doesn't matter what anyone does now, it's a done deal."
The only way what we do now would not matter is if we had already reached the point of wiping out the entire human race. Otherwise, any amount of emissions reduction we achieved would result in less warming and thus less damage.
The claim that what we do now does not matter is simply false.
[
I never said it would wipe out the human race right now...
I said it was a done deal. AKA...according to some models, what's happened has happened and can't be changed. You may reduce the damage, but you won't be able to stop it.
AKA...done deal.
To use some of the distasteful media sources that bring it in a much more simplified form, perhaps that will be more understandable.
climate change irreversible not unstoppable
It's time to adapt to unstoppable climate change
climate change unstoppable and irreversible
Apocalypse Now - unstoppable climate change may be a reality in a few years
carbon cuts won't stop climate change, could limit damage
Global Warming Unstoppable for 100 years
Now personally, I find the media misrepresents most of what Scientists say, and/or takes what is stated out of context (for example, some like to spread around the 97 or 99% of scientist agree on man made climate change which is about the most extreme twisting of numbers EVER...most agree man may have some sort of impact on climate change, but hardly have a consensus on HOW MUCH of an impact).
Still, MOST of the research on information is NOT found via easily accessible sources on the internet, which makes posting valid information DIFFICULT to say the least. However, we aren't talking VALID information, we are talking worst case scenarios...(rather than what my own opinion on what is happening is...which is just that...an opinion).
A Lot of what the articles are saying above are hype based on a worst case (which, if we went by the worst case from a decade ago...well...seeing most of them haven't come to pass...you could view it with some skepticism...STILL...it IS science and some of the worst case HAVE occurred...which should also ring some alarm bells).
That said, another political organization which some try to paint as scientific came out with a paper. It is on this paper that most of the above articles are written from.
It is NOT as simplified in it's presentation as the articles above...and can take some time. It DOES address many different points of view, and does include actual science and scientific views.
The most impressive part is that it DOES address the discontinuity that is found among the REAL scientific community and probably sorts through some of what I've said in my posts concerning the disagreements that can be found (IPCC hardly speaks for everyone, or even a majority).
That's on 12.1 page 1036.
That said, it does address many of the issues and major items that a lot of research is done around, and as I said, is far more scientific in it's approach then most media outlets out there.
Chapter 12 of the Finished report
In it, a worst case scenario can be found which I summed up as saying...it's a done deal.
That doesn't mean that the worst case scenario is necessarily agreed is occurring...and I thought I was obvious in how I said it...but in some methods and arguments, they would say, it's already here and unstoppable as well as irreversible, at least for the time being.
Can it be changed...maybe in a 50 to 100 years according to those models, but even if the better case models are taken into consideration...the biggest problem is human and social behavior...and there are no signs that we can change it drastically enough to actually make enough of a difference quick enough to stop any sort of climate change from drastically affecting us according to a LOT of these types of reports.
Hopefully that's enough linkage to give you the information you are wanting?
Thank you GreyWolfLord.
Honestly, I doubt that the human race will be wiped out. We will hurt the world, but it has been through worse. HAVING said that, it still doesn't make it right and we need to do something about the damage that we are doing. Plus, I live on the coastline. I don't want to possibly be under water. I am already under water with my mortgage, so I do not want to repeat it. ~grins~
|
|
I said it was a done deal. AKA...according to some models, what's happened has happened and can't be changed. You may reduce the damage, but you won't be able to stop it.
Only some models show that "what's happened has happened"?
Forgive me, but I find it difficult to believe that your only point was that we can't change the past. If so... that's true. But entirely irrelevant.
To use some of the distasteful media sources that bring it in a much more simplified form, perhaps that will be more understandable.
Have you READ those articles? They ALL make the point that we can still prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels.
The 'unstoppable' and 'irreversible' descriptors are referring to inherent aspects of how CO2 driven global warming works... regardless of the DEGREE of warming. If we only raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 25 ppm that would set off "unstoppable" global warming for centuries that would then be "irreversible" for thousands of years... it would just be a very small amount of warming.
Now personally, I find the media misrepresents most of what Scientists say, and/or takes what is stated out of context (for example, some like to spread around the 97 or 99% of scientist agree on man made climate change which is about the most extreme twisting of numbers EVER...most agree man may have some sort of impact on climate change, but hardly have a consensus on HOW MUCH of an impact).
Repeating this ad infinitum will not make it true.
Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that 97% or more of climate scientists and/or climate science studies agree that most (i.e. > 50%) of the observed global warming has been due to human activities.
Now, this HAS been misreported as just '97% of scientists'... which IS incorrect. That level of agreement only exists amongst scientists who actually study the climate and know what they are talking about.
In it, a worst case scenario can be found which I summed up as saying...it's a done deal.
Above you claimed that you were saying the PAST is a done deal. Now some manner of 'worst case scenario' involving climate change supposedly is.
You're going to have to explain precisely what you mean... because the document you link very clearly states that we are nowhere near the worst case scenario for climate change and we can still stop it from reaching generally agreed harmful levels;
"To limit the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone to be likely less than 2°C relative to the period 1861-1880, total CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources would need to be limited to a cumulative budget of about 1000 PgC since that period. About half [445 to 585 PgC] of this budget was already emitted by 2011."
...the biggest problem is human and social behavior...and there are no signs that we can change it drastically enough to actually make enough of a difference quick enough to stop any sort of climate change from drastically affecting us according to a LOT of these types of reports.
The source you are supposedly basing this position on explicitly states that it makes no evaluation of the issue;
"This section does not advocate or defend any threshold, nor does it judge the economic or political feasibility of such goals, but simply assesses the implications of different illustrative climate targets on allowed carbon emissions, based on our current understanding of climate and carbon cycle feedbacks."
Repeating this ad infinitum will not make it true.
Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that 97% or more of climate scientists and/or climate science studies agree that most (i.e. > 50%) of the observed global warming has been due to human activities.
Now, this HAS been misreported as just '97% of scientists'... which IS incorrect. That level of agreement only exists amongst scientists who actually study the climate and know what they are talking about.
I'm not certain you realize the irony (and I suppose it could be an absolute riot to the "actual scientists" I collect data for "who study climate and know what they are talking about") with what you just stated.
Ironically, I and all those who I work with are included in that supposed statistic. The actual number are those who agree mankind has some sort of influence on Climate change...not those who agree that it is 100% caused and due to human activities. Interestingly enough, they interpreted one collegue of mine's report that said that a major cause was actually solar rather than man made, though there were some few minor influences of mankind's interactions that influenced solar warming...as saying his report stated it was caused by human activity. Yeah...they twisted that (and a lot of OTHER scientists research papers) waaaaaaay out of context.
But...oh well.
I'm not here to change your opinion. To be honest, I'm not quite certain what you are exactly trying to go about anyways...sometimes you seem to be all about man made Climate Change, and other times it seems you are against it.
I got baited into this discussion when I probably should have stayed out of it. Afterall, in truth, most people would rather read media articles and political statements than ANYTHING ANYONE IN THE ACTUAL FIELD has to say about it. So, I posted a lot of media articles and a political paper on it. I see it didn't go over so well (and yes, I read them before I posted them...).
I'm mainly do what 99% of those involved with Climate Change do (and I am NOT a scientist, I am a volunteer, who obtains data...I don't do analysis, modeling, or anything else, just to be clear). Most of the research is on a local and regional level (I gather local data for temperature, weather, and environment...and that's all I do in regards to my involvement).
Now, if you are of the opinion that NONE of those scientist (which is greater than your 97%, I'd say 99% of them do research on very specific arenas and items occurring rather than a more broad and general spectrum, most of their PHd and Post Doc were done on very specific items of research rather than a more broad and general area...in fact, I don't know a single PHd that didn't do their paper on a specific and focused arena) who do focused research count...
And only those who do very general and broad research should be considered...that's a VERY small number (as I said, I don't even know anyone who got their PHd doing a general research paper, normally respectable colleges want something far more focused than that)...I'm not sure what to say. YOu may be right, I don't really know many of those at all...
But, each to their own. These days I mostly come to post my local findings occasionally rather than go into anything with my opinion (and if one really needs to realize that, anything I say on a global scale IS MY OPINION rather than dead, hard set fact...based on what I've seen occurring at conferences and other areas of discussion) rather than get into deep hearty debates on the fate of the world of Climate change.
As far as actions go, I'm invested monetarily into a solar company, which probably means that anything I say could be taken as biased as well, which I put out in full disclosure so anyone can read whatever I say in my opinions with that in mind. I don't think taking actions now on what is still an unpredicatable future (my opinion) is a bad thing, and I literally put my money where my mouth is in that regards. I can only hope I didn't lose out on this (in a bad way).
As I said, I'm not here to change your opinion, and from what you posted I highly doubt you'll change my opinion (if you can even guess what my opinions actually are). So, I'll go about my usual business and come back again in a few weeks or months to post more of my findings, and you guys can continue debating whether Climate Change is real or not and whether the results will be catastrophic or not.
GreyWolfLord, thanks for trying to make the world a better place.
P.S. - I am on the side that says that humans are screwing up the environment (and the world).
|
|
Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that 97% or more of climate scientists and/or climate science studies agree that most (i.e. > 50%) of the observed global warming has been due to human activities.Ironically, I and all those who I work with are included in that supposed statistic.
You're a "climate scientist".
Riiiigggghhhhtt.
<plonk>
Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that 97% or more of climate scientists and/or climate science studies agree that most (i.e. > 50%) of the observed global warming has been due to human activities.Ironically, I and all those who I work with are included in that supposed statistic.You're a "climate scientist".
Riiiigggghhhhtt.
<plonk>
Please reread before opening your mouth and putting your foot into it. He never said he was a Climate Scientist. He only said that he does some data gathering for them on the local and regional level. Please think before posting so you don't look like a... Well, you get the idea.
Please reread before opening your mouth and putting your foot into it. He never said he was a Climate Scientist. He only said that he does some data gathering for them on the local and regional level. Please think before posting so you don't look like a... Well, you get the idea.Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that 97% or more of climate scientists and/or climate science studies agree that most (i.e. > 50%) of the observed global warming has been due to human activities.Ironically, I and all those who I work with are included in that supposed statistic.You're a "climate scientist".
Riiiigggghhhhtt.
<plonk>
Actually he said he wasn't and he just did gathering for them. Then he said he was included in the "97% or more of climate scientists". You know, right there in the bit quoted.
So, much like most of his posts, it's self-contradictory and makes very little sense.
~grins~ Ok. That part could have used some refining. But I did understand what he meant.
Please reread before opening your mouth and putting your foot into it. He never said he was a Climate Scientist. He only said that he does some data gathering for them on the local and regional level. Please think before posting so you don't look like a... Well, you get the idea.Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that 97% or more of climate scientists and/or climate science studies agree that most (i.e. > 50%) of the observed global warming has been due to human activities.Ironically, I and all those who I work with are included in that supposed statistic.You're a "climate scientist".
Riiiigggghhhhtt.
<plonk>
Actually he said he wasn't and he just did gathering for them. Then he said he was included in the "97% or more of climate scientists". You know, right there in the bit quoted.
So, much like most of his posts, it's self-contradictory and makes very little sense.
Not if you understand how scientific papers are cited in review studies. The 97% number is taking all the authors of all the papers into the total number. If he is a co-author on his colleagues paper (which would be totally appropriate depending on how much contributory data he collected) that he says was misconstrued in the 97% number then he actually rightly would be one of those 97%. His personal self-identification as "not-a-scientist" doesn't mean he isn't represented in that statistic as one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not if you understand how scientific papers are cited in review studies. The 97% number is taking all the authors of all the papers into the total number. If he is a co-author on his colleagues paper (which would be totally appropriate depending on how much contributory data he collected) that he says was misconstrued in the 97% number then he actually rightly would be one of those 97%. His personal self-identification as "not-a-scientist" doesn't mean he isn't represented in that statistic as one.Please reread before opening your mouth and putting your foot into it. He never said he was a Climate Scientist. He only said that he does some data gathering for them on the local and regional level. Please think before posting so you don't look like a... Well, you get the idea.Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that 97% or more of climate scientists and/or climate science studies agree that most (i.e. > 50%) of the observed global warming has been due to human activities.Ironically, I and all those who I work with are included in that supposed statistic.You're a "climate scientist".
Riiiigggghhhhtt.
<plonk>
Actually he said he wasn't and he just did gathering for them. Then he said he was included in the "97% or more of climate scientists". You know, right there in the bit quoted.
So, much like most of his posts, it's self-contradictory and makes very little sense.
I could be wrong, but from what he's described, I doubt he's at "co-author" status. Not every local routine data gatherer is. GWL, is that actually what you meant?
[I'm only answering due to a politely asked direct question as I had checked out of the conversation with my post above as it was seeming to get more hostile, and I didn't really want to get involved in making anyone angry or upset again in regards to this topic].
Not really.
But I HAVE written multiple papers in regards to the environment and climate. It was NOT written as a scientist. It has been a few years since I wrote anything.
Since around the late 80s I was involved with data collection. Originally it was with the EPA and Hazmat on various hydrocarbons. I'd collect data then directly on chemical emissions into the environment.
The samples would be sent to labs and my observations would be given to the REAL scientist and actual project heads and they'd do the actual analysis and research. They would then write up their short report and then hand it off to me for various reasons (for starters, while I was paid 50 dollars per hour back then vs. their 125 to 200 dollars an hour). Sometimes it's because I was the one who had actually visited the areas and they had not, that meant that I could correlate anything in regards to what I actually observed in regards to their analysis and reports.
It would then all be filed off to some government file cabinet where they waited for others to look at the information and either build off of it or whatever else they wanted.
I didn't really want to stay in that job, as at the time I didn't have a degree in the field and hence in some ways was expendable. That meant, when there were reports on hazardous wastes (chemical, nuclear, etc), guess who got sent to do the surveys and samples...yours truly. I joke I didn't want to glow in the dark (in truth, if I ever had contamination that bad, I would be dead) which is why I focused my college in other areas.
So, instead of environmental engineering, geophysics with a Meteorological or climate type background, I studied physics and history.
Later, when I finally got into legal and was able to support myself in that way, I still was involved with that process, but normally it was from a legal standpoint in regards to the paperwork and different aspects in that regards.
I have hundreds of reports with my writing from around the late 80s (probably 88 onwards) to the mid 2000s (the aughts, decade not century). There is a good possibility that some of that has been quoted or utilized by others in their research, but I'm not notified when that happens so no idea how many or how much of it is out there.
Most of my focus was on other legal aspects (as my focus was administrative and contract law rather then environmental or constitutional).
My spouse is the REAL scientist in our house that deals with Climate Change and other items. It was through my connections in the industry that are partially due with me having met her, and I still have a lot of connections in the industry (which is also how I got drafted into this entire solar business as well. One of my old project heads invented a new way to store solar energy longterm and wanted to try to get the program off to a start in the US).
I no longer write or have anything to do with writing reports in that field. I no longer get paid to do anything in the field with that type of stuff. Anything I do is normally in conjunction with others (my spouse and her connections as well as others I know) that need help in doing various items (normally data collection...not glorious, and not all that wonderful in truth...but they need it done and I have a LOT more freetime these days. Normally if I do the data collection I actually go out with a few others, one who is a trained specialist and IS paid for those particular instruments).
I am currently retired (at least some would call it that way), and don't do anything I don't have to these days. Anything I do is strictly because I feel like helping out and when people ask...if I feel it's worthwhile (plus it gets me out of the house and some of those places are pretty out there, so a few days outside in the "wilderness" for a while) I try to help. I am NOT a significant member of the Climate Change community, nor do I want anyone to think that I am actually some significant individual in that arena.
Up until 2012 I was filling out surveys in regards to different ideas I had and sometimes things I had written. I can't recall all of them, but I imagine if they really were hitting up everyone who had written papers (aka, an actual authentic study) I was most likely one of those who they polled for that 97% result or who they looked at research or other wise.
To be clear, all of my papers were written under the authority of others who would read it before release and put their signature on it (though I'm pretty sure a lot of those same papers also had me credited, at least for much of the research part even if it was more collecting information).
And that is basically all the background I have in regards to the Environmental and Climate Change arena. I'm not a mover or shaker, nor anyone of great scientific background. I go to conferences with my spouse occasionally (more like dragged along to them), and try to understand what the heck she does (she currently does a LOT of analysis and other items on a program I think is called ArcGIS as well as other items, and it's more focused on her arena which would be dealing with Animals and their changes due to Climate Change and other factors).
Which is why I will say again, anything I say about the global situation (and I think it would be obvious, probably this pertains to much of those posting in the thread as well, but I can only speak for myself) is MY OPINION. My focus of what I know about is actually my local area, and even then it's more purely the data for the area rather than the analysis. I see what my spouse does, it's more reaching than that, but it still isn't dealing with a global analysis, normally it is more specific (and by that, we mean MUCH MORE SPECIFIC as in a specific animal in a specific region type specific).
Hopefully that answers your question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who are having trouble parsing my position on Climate Change.
No trouble parsing it. Just don't agree with it.
Since we don't know what we don't know (note the bold portion of the quote I provided), trying to model or stop AGW is, as they say, merely academic.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (from your bolded text) is a pattern of movement of energy within the climate system. It has NOTHING to do with the accumulation of more energy in the climate system (aka climate change).
Essentially, your position is the equivalent of saying, 'we cannot predict the pattern of water movement in a jacuzzi... therefore we have no idea what would happen if more water is poured in'. Of course we do... the water level would rise. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. Modelling net energy flows into and out of the climate system is comparatively simple relative to modelling the behaviour of all air and water currents on the planet.
FAQ:
Are you saying we should not bother to stop AGW?
FA:
Right. Because it is already too late.
If the human race isn't extinct and all the fossil carbon on the planet hasn't been burned yet then it obviously isn't too late to prevent the problem from getting worse.
At a certain point it becomes inevitable that a car is going to collide with something... that doesn't mean there is no point in slamming on the breaks to reduce the speed at which the impact occurs. Global warming has been going on for decades and thus is, indeed, inevitable (barring development of time travel to go back and prevent it)... but we still have a great deal of control over how bad it will get.
So we're back to: "Regulation is bad or at best pointless and we should just let efficiency take care of the problem. Not that we know if there's a problem because Chaos."
Or am I still off.
And you think we can deploy nuclear fusion on a large scale in 4 years?
Heh. I bet we will get it just before we are due to get AI. Around about 30 years from now, just like fusion and AI was 30 years from the 1960s.
Funnily enough, the world's first fusion reactor that will get enough energy from fusion to stay hot without external powering is due to be finished in 2019. FFS, serious experiments using fusion fuel aren't going to happen for over a decade Bear in mind that this is a reactor, not a generator. We haven't even gotten to a steam engine equivalent yet - just a bonfire in a high pressure container that doesn't need to be put under a metaphorical blow torch to stay lit. The ITER research reactor is expected to operate for 20 years.
As someone in my 20s, I can have a degree of hope that I will see widescale fusion (probably quite late) in my lifetime. Expecting anything less than that is wishful thinking at best.
|
|
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (from your bolded text) is a pattern of movement of energy within the climate system. It has NOTHING to do with the accumulation of more energy in the climate system (aka climate change).But it has everything to do with showing how daft it is to model climate change and then make specific recommendations based on a given model.
No, it doesn't.
You are saying;
'We cannot model A (the PDO), therefore modelling B (climate change) is pointless'.
THAT is "daft". They are different things. The only relevance the PDO has to climate change is the short term (i.e. decadal) variability it introduces to lower atmosphere air temperatures. Basically... the PDO is 'noise' which makes it difficult to determine the climate change trend over short time periods if you are looking only at the lower atmosphere (rather than the climate system as a whole). However, it has NO impact on the actual rate of global warming.
The various TED Talks, cited papers, etc., up-thread too often want to drive policy from the science of climate models. Such recommendations are virtually guaranteed to be wrong, perhaps catastrophically wrong in particular instances. But, I expect, largely the recommendations, if followed, would be a simple (if bold) waste of time and resources.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George E. P. Box
It is true that we cannot model everything perfectly. However, going from that fact to 'therefore models are useless' is a profound failure of logic. Climate models created 40 years ago accurately (i.e. within the margin of error) predicted the warming we have actually observed. Recommendations based on those models (e.g. for higher sea walls, more flood controls, crop migration, et cetera) were thus NOT a "waste of time and resources". Likewise, actions taken based on modern, much more accurate, climate models will be vitally important in AVOIDING future catastrophes.
If the human race isn't extinct and all the fossil carbon on the planet hasn't been burned yet then it obviously isn't too late to prevent the problem from getting worse.
At a certain point it becomes inevitable that a car is going to collide with something... that doesn't mean there is no point in slamming on the breaks to reduce the speed at which the impact occurs. Global warming has been going on for decades and thus is, indeed, inevitable (barring development of time travel to go back and prevent it)... but we still have a great deal of control over how bad it will get.
True but this handily ignores two salient points.
1) The economics of coal (and to a lessor extent oil), outside of climate change considerations, have already put on the breaks more than any geopolitical deal ever could.
Ummm... yes. I 'ignored' the economics of coal in refuting your claim that "it is already too late" to stop global warming. I also 'ignored' the unladen flight speed of swallows, the growth rate of human hair, and several trillion other completely irrelevant things.
Taking your effort to change the subject as admission that your previous claim (i.e. that it is "too late" to stop global warming) was false... I agree that economic factors, specifically the falling costs of wind power, solar power, and energy storage, will do MORE to stop global warming than any international agreement.
So what? Cheap renewable power is good. Cheap renewable power AND international commitments to work towards deploying it are BETTER.
People being people, most deals will end up being about as effective as the Kyoto Protocol.
If you tell me that the current deal (the Paris Agreement) has already shown (or will shortly show) more progress than anything we had hoped from Kyoto, I'll point out that the positive change is almost entirely attributable to the economics of coal.
Yes... the reason that the Paris Agreement has been more effective than the Kyoto Protocol is that the economics have changed in the interim.
That doesn't change the fact that it HAS been more effective and thus your statement that it "will end up being about as effective as the Kyoto Protocol" is directly disproved by your own argument.
Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.Notice the portion that I boldified.
Talk about a recipe for a modern retelling of the Tragedy of the Commons!
You've lost me. If emissions and removals are balanced then the total atmospheric CO2 content stops growing (i.e. if amount added = amount removed then change = 0). That's what we want.
How is actually achieving the goal a tragedy?
Or we could nail down and scale up nuclear fusion by 2020 and all go back to living in happy land.
Which future do you see happening?
Given that viable nuclear fusion technology does not exist, is unlikely to by 2020, and certainly could not be built out sufficiently in four years to replace current fossil fuel power? Definitely NOT that future.
I'm assuming 'Happy land' is another name for 'Never never land'... because that's when it would happen.
On the chance you meant nuclear fission, a commercial power technology which actually exists... unfortunately that is even more expensive than coal and takes a great deal of time to deploy. Had we started twenty years ago, nuclear fission might have played a significant role in stopping global warming. However, now it just doesn't make any sense. Other options are faster, cheaper, safer, and cleaner.
Honestly, I doubt that the human race will be wiped out. We will hurt the world, but it has been through worse. HAVING said that, it still doesn't make it right and we need to do something about the damage that we are doing. Plus, I live on the coastline. I don't want to possibly be under water. I am already under water with my mortgage, so I do not want to repeat it. ~grins~
The human race might not be wiped out, but it will be a pretty crappy existence that we bequeath to our descendants. They'll be living in the ruins of a civilisation that won't be able to bootstrap itself back up because we've already dug up and used the easily extractable resources. It will be a human race that has gone through a dieoff so great that the Black Plague would look like a weekend outbreak of Legionaire's disease.
For a look at how the bad scenario plays out, I submit Earth 2100
|
|
In four years? In my dreams! But it is exactly what humanity will need to do anything like what the Paris Agreement dreamily outlines.
AND
Did you read the Paris Agreement?
They expressly pushed out the "we will actually do something about AGW" to the year 2050! We need to do something now, (actually yesteryear, circa 2000), not 35 years from now.
The worst thing isn't that you made these mutually contradictory statements in the same post.
No, the worst thing is that they are BOTH blatantly false.
Honestly, I doubt that the human race will be wiped out. We will hurt the world, but it has been through worse. HAVING said that, it still doesn't make it right and we need to do something about the damage that we are doing. Plus, I live on the coastline. I don't want to possibly be under water. I am already under water with my mortgage, so I do not want to repeat it. ~grins~The human race might not be wiped out, but it will be a pretty crappy existence that we bequeath to our descendants. They'll be living in the ruins of a civilisation that won't be able to bootstrap itself back up because we've already dug up and used the easily extractable resources. It will be a human race that has gone through a dieoff so great that the Black Plague would look like a weekend outbreak of Legionaire's disease.
For a look at how the bad scenario plays out, I submit Earth 2100
Oh, I agree that it could be (and probably will be) pretty horrible.