I honestly believe the US isn't going to have enough political capital or will to do anything about climate change in next 15-20 years.
What we will have to do regardless is deal with rising storm surges and sea levels. Pretty much every major city will need a significant storm barriers. We should consider land buy back on easily flooded harbor barriers, and perhaps even abandonment of smaller coastal communities.
Unfortunately, the everglades are sunk, and Florida will become increasingly unlivable, as salt water infiltrates almost all groundwater supplies.
It is the Antarctica summer and there is no miracles that would reverse the physics for that crack now, so let's stop panic for every a few miles of the procession and let the near future reality sink in -- when enough people do that, we may have hope.
The last decade is the most progressive political period in US yet all we did is the worst damage to the climate crisis (on the flip side, how much worse could it be?). So let's face it, the political show does not really matter. Nothing will change until we crash and nature will force the change upon us. This is nothing new in the history and in a few millennia every thing will be renew and we will be forgotten (and forgiven).
The inevitability is built into the large number theory. As long as there are too many drivers on the wheel and too many cooks in the kitchen, the average will rule the society and the average will always be shallow and near sighted. So before the actual crisis hit nearly every one, the society is incapable of change direction.
In the analogy, money would be the gasoline and we have too many feet on that pedal. The market absolutely destroys any kind of responsibility. Meanwhile, passengers, either enjoy the ride or embrace yourself.
What about educating the whole population to the point that the average joe can think logically, critically, and independently so that the society as a whole can adapt change better?
And it's not like we haven't seen that the average person can make better decisions because of education, than medieval age lets say. Maybe we just need faster ways to improve the population.
Of course that is the solution. The question is how? To be specific, what actually should we educate the population?
We should differentiate knowledge from intelligence or wisdom. Knowledge can be fake, misleading, or contradictory. We have more knowledge and access of information than medieval age typical Joe, but do we have more intelligence or wisdom?
To make the comparison easier, do we have more intelligence and wisdom than Plato (whom I am certain that we possess more knowledge)?
This is a large topic and I've been thinking for a while. In essence, there are 2 major things we need to educate more.
1. Science. To the point that average joe understands that the prediction of climate change is concluded from the same scientific methods that helped us finding cures for diseases, inventing computers, and sending people to the moon. Science is not always perfect the same as we dont always have perfect cure for some diseases at the moment. But that is the best we can do for now, and it's the work of many experts over many years. So it is logical to either believe it or contribute to it scientifically, financially, auditing-wise, or something else. After all we believe in scientists not because that they have the title, but because we believe in scientific methods, in scientific approach.
2. Social science. Pure science is about causality. Social science can teach us value, what is good, what is bad, and happiness. Then we can discuss whether not acting upon climate change will make you more happy or less happy.
Not with Betsy Blackwater at the helm; if she does anything other than weaken public education at the benefit of the various charter systems, I will be deeply surprised.
You could start by 'educating' scientists like Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Judith Curry and Ivar Giaever. Would the population act differently if they rose to these folks' intellectual level?
Well, if you always stop actually listen to these scientists at the first sentence, then you are not educated (IMHO, sorry, no offense).
To be educated IMHO, we should care about reasons of what they say more than the title of what they say. It is not unusual for scientists to draw wrong conclusions from the the right reasons, and those right reasons can help you draw your own right conclusions.
When each of us can maintain our own set of knowledge/conclusions under a set of consistent reasons, then the society will be much more resistant to any kind of appeal to authority/popularity logic fallacy.
In contrast to this advocacy of nihilism, hopelessness and apathy I offer a foil. Agitate.
Get out in the streets and put your body on the line if you believe this is real.
We are the worlds first experiment in self governace. We believe in government for the people, by the people. We can accomplish so much more by showing up and standing up for policy change.
Exercise your right to assemble. Exercise your right to speak. Join. Donate. Walk.
If you don't have a community of people around you willing to fight for this, make one. Host lecturers, host sign making jams, make art, make friends.
What you're recommending is a way to feel good without achieving anything. Nobody in power gives a shit about protests unless they become overwhelmingly large and people are willing to die en masse.
Also, we are not the world's first experiment in self-governance. that's a bedtime story for people who don't read history books.
> "Host lecturers, host sign making jams, make art, make friends."
As if we needed more performative signaling today...
I don't necessarily share GP's viewpoint but it's incredibly naive to assume that the US government isn't completely controlled by monied interests at this point... More than half of Trump's cabinet donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Furthermore, just being a whimsical, creative person doesn't wrest power from those who control our nation... the 60's and 70's pretty conclusively proved that if you needed evidence. If you want to take power from those who have it (which is the definition of enacting climate change legislation) then you literally have to take power. Given that money was used to move power away from the people, it seems a good place to start in taking it back.
"Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."[0]
Whimsy is not what I advocated. If that's how it came across perhaps I chose my words imperfectly. I'm trying to figure out secular, modern ways of building community. MLK used the power of religion to build and sustain his movement. And to pretend that it didn't successfully create change is historical revisionism.
You'll find Dr. King's approach was a heck of a lot more than "trying to raise awareness", or "building communities".
I do not think it is just an odd coincidence that most people have forgotten the economic, political, and social militancy that came with the Civil Rights movement in favor of a disney-ified[0] version where mere marches, willpower, and belief in a certain set of principles caused widespread change.
I have not gone to any kind of leadership / political organization training. Just flying by the seat of my pants; running on faith, awareness and just a little bit of rage. If you have any recommendations, please share :)
I'm very much aware that MLK had a larger vision for shared economic prosperity, a vision for "a beloved community," that is very much sanitized by the mainstream narrative. The article you posted doesn't really do service to telling the actual message. I recommend this On Being interview where Vincent Harding [0] gives an overview.
Except this time the tension is between nature and human. The activists do not necessarily bring that tension more to the surface than muddling it with societal tensions.
Believing that Get out in the streets and put your body on the line will do anything is questionable. I don't share that belief.
Reality gets sink in, not by watching TV or listening to activists. So for me, try to open my eyes and sort out my logic is the action to make. When enough people understand the reality without internal contradiction, the right action will show up.
So I am acting on my belief, advocating truth and logic here.
"I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."[0]
We speak and march to create visibility, to bring to light and make tangible the struggles that are hidden and quiet and disconnected. There's only so much typing messages into the infinite electric void can accomplish. Be careful to understand the difference between truth/logic and beliefs you choose to hold to keep you sheltered in your apathy.
The problem with "for the people, by the people" is that most of the people want just the former and not the later. They want to tell some other people how to govern for them and then return to staring at their iphone.
Everything has been deleted from the White House website, this happens with every Presidential transition—the old site gets taken down and archived and the new team puts up their own site from scratch.
Don't assume he is being honest when he says anything. Lying is practically the guys calling card.
That said, he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another globally. With how cheap wand and solar has gotten coal is on the way out and would take significant subsides to become competitive.
he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another
He has appointed a number of climate-change deniers to the cabinet [1], including positions such as the EPA Administrator. I wouldn't be surprised to see action against mitigating climate change, such as removing protections, or reducing funding for agencies involved in environmental protection.
Has he gone back on his plan to end the Paris treaty? If not that seems like a big push one way or the other - though of course he might go back on it.
For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy
industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary
policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages
by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.
You'd think, but he's decided to take the weekend off (not kidding). This, after it came out that he wanted tanks and rocket launchers at the inauguration. Our Dear Leader had to be told that it would look bad, and that the weight of the tanks would turn the streets to rubble.
So I think it would be a mistake to dismiss it as pure conjecture considering that it has been partly validated by events. It would be quite easy to file a FOIA request to find out whether there were requests for ground-based hardware. Trump is already on record expressing a desire for military parades: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/trump-to-hold-military...
Whether or not Trump is sincere, it is a commonly held belief among the American right that climate change is a fraud or a hoax perpetrated by "leftists" or, as Trump seems to claim, the Chinese.
To me, the problem is less that Trump claims to believe climate change is a Chinese hoax, and more that such insane claims are what got him elected, because they seem refreshingly honest to so many Americans.
We don't need to DO anything to achieve Doomsday, we need to fail to do enough, in time to prevent the point of no return. I'd say we're right on track.
I am not a fan of how people try to downplay the situation and 'play fair' but giving someone the benefit of doubt who openly denies climate change and has appointed key members in the cabinet who have a lot of reasons to deny climate change even if they know its true. The Secretary of State is the former CEO of Exxon.
There is no wisdom in trying to be neutral. There is no smartness and tolerance in trying to protect and tolerate things that are by themselves intolerant and harmful.
> That said, he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another globally.
He's likely to push climate change one way -- that is, in the direction of reinforcing the current trend. He's may be unlikely to push substantive policy responses to climate change, but that's a different issue.
He has an opportunity to go down in history as the president who saved the planet. He has not shown to lean this direction but I find it interesting that someone who wants worldly recognition would ignore a glaring opportunity.
Agreed but the guy seems to like recognition and as a "billionare" I would assume the only thing left is to cement your legacy. How better to do it than be recognized by the world as the US president who changed stance on global warming and made a difference.
Perhaps I am still dreaming that he will do an about face and actually be a good president. Regardless of who is president we can still dream, can't we?
This is an odd request. Everything is undercutting coal. Coal has always been a rather expensive and dangerous technology, it's just that it's plentiful and in the land rights of Western powers.
Other forms of energy have been undercutting it since thermal steam rigs started working in North African farms. Probably longer when you consider the history of wind power.
If Natural Gas wasn't so arduous to obtain, a carbon liberator, and damaging to the water table to obtain, I suspect we'd be more excited about it.
If Methane Hydrates work out, then natural gas will be less arduous to obtain - port cities will have pipes coming up from the seafloor into the harbor, delivering it to their millions of residents.
It's true, but it'd be nice if we were using oceanic floor pressure to sequester carbon rather than liberate more, even if on the long balance it's carbon neutral.
We really need to work out practices where we actively remove carbon from the air.
Yes, but the problem with him is that he's a mentally unsophisticated sociopath who is being led by the nose by anyone who will say nice things about him. This is a guy who will subsidize coal over wind and solar because "I don't wanna lose jobs."
Sea levels are expected to rise around 2 feet by 2050 which is not going to have the impact you are suggesting. The largest impact is going to make storm surges which can reach up to 40 feet significantly worse. But, generally causing storms which would have already been bad will be worse will not hit everywhere at the same time.
Since 1870 sea level has risen <8 inches. To more than triple this amount of sea level rise in less than a quarter as many years would require a truly horrific change in climate.
Climate change is a problem, and it seems to be the number one problem for atheists and the like, but I'm still skeptical that the forecast of gloom and doom will come to pass.
Unfortunately, it's lose/lose for skeptics:
If you turn out to be right and Florida becomes unlivable in the next 50 years, you turn the skeptics into scapegoats and curb stomp them into submission. However, if you turn out to be wrong you just get off scot-free and say "Well, I turned out to be wrong because of X factor that everyone overlooked, but I came to the best conclusion possible with the evidence I had at hand. The skeptics were still wrong to have rejected science."
Why on Earth should I (someone convinced that climate change is happening), be forced to pay for after-the-fact land buy-back, when my neighbor (who believes that the Chinese are turning up thermometers around the world), refuses to pay for a 3% increase in gas tax?
When you are thinking like that, you are yet to accept the reality. When you absolutely convinces yourself that you are doomed, your mind will not be thinking about should. Your mind will be thinking about what can you do -- or accept doom.
The population still panics at every progression as if it is a surprise is an evidence that we by far are not realizing the reality. This is understandable -- our perception scale is simply too minuscule to the scale of the actual problem.
Yet it seems you have also tucked in somewhere a belief that driving off the cliff is not that big of a deal (to your other internal beliefs). Could you try detail that cliff. If that cliff is simply a word with little detail, that will be far from the reality, isn't it?
Only when we convince ourselves that we are really cornered with no acceptable alternatives, only then, we will figure out and try our really admirable effort (to fight).
By the way, Scientists studying the rift don't attribute this event to climate change:
> "This is probably not directly attributable to any warming in the region, although of course the warming won't have helped," says Luckman. "It's probably just simply a natural event that's just been waiting around to happen." [0]
Jesus Christ. 100+ comments with back-and-forth about climate change and the scientist who knows the most doesn't think it has anything to do with the crack.
If the cracking speed continues, it'll brake apart in few weeks.
I'm curious if there are projections on where it'll float after it looses connection, given that certainly there are currents in the region, but I don't think that such huge mass wasn't used in drift calculations earlier.
The title of this article is missing a crucial "in 2 weeks" that actually gives meaning to 6 miles. I can't believe how poorly articles are titled. Qualifying information takes a few words.
That's 9.6 kilometers for you metric folk. Someone has suggested a March breakup for the Ice block. That is the time of the Minimum Ice Extent. I would love to know what the projections are for how long it will take for this iceberg to melt. Imagine what adventures it will have traveling around the world with albatross, turtles and whales for company.
Climate change is not the end of the world. The climate has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels higher. The transition period until the climate stabilizes at a higher temperature will be uncomfortable because of problems with agriculture, sea level rise and so on, but I don't think it will wipe out modern civilization.
"CO2 levels higher": Would you mind sharing your source on this?
Here are the last 6,000 years [1] (it cuts off at 4713 BC because that happens to be the earliest timestamp available in Postgres). The source data from the NOAA are here [2] and you can see for yourself that we are something like 30% higher than the highest level of CO2 recorded in the last 800,000 years.
If you have a source that tells a different story, let me know.
1. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since human civilization has existed (10k years, roughly).
2. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since humans have existed (200k years, roughly).
3. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since primates have existed (50M years, roughly).
But for the sake of argument let’s say:
4. CO2 may not be the highest it has ever been since mammals have existed (200M years, roughly).
5. CO2 is not the highest it has ever been since multicellular life has existed on land (500M years, roughly).
Fair enough. Maybe 1-3 are less concerning to you than they are to me. When you say "the climate has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels higher" and are referring to a period prior to the existence of primates, it doesn't necessarily make me feel that much better. :) That said I’m nothing close to being expert in this stuff.
It’s interestingly difficult to think about time over so many orders of magnitude.
All of those changes will cause great pains and tribulations for the most vulnerable. Maybe we can genetically engineer more drought-resistant plants or whatnot, but the farmers in rural parts of third-world-countries will suffer, while what's left of their freshwater supplies dry. Once the coral reefs are wiped out from the increased acidification of the oceans, another hundred or so million will starve to death because they rely on food from the ocean.
Of course, as I said the transition period will be uncomfortable. A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though.
That transition period is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to accept it as an inevitability, and it is unacceptable to view a few hundred million as inconsequential, especially when the tools are present to solve the issue. In my eyes, once we get to the point where our complacency has allowed us to even think in these terms and still be able to sleep comfortably at night, we have already lost (I'm no exception, and this isn't an accusation). We've allowed power to condense to a select few, and we all feel like small fries in the big global stage.
I agree that we should stop producing GHGs as quickly as possible. I'm just arguing that climate change is not the end of the world. In the same way you can argue that another global war is probably not the end of the world yet we should avoid it by all means.
I don't mean the figure of speech "not the end of the world", I mean the literal end of human civilization. I think you have to agree that humanity can carry on even if every tenth human dies. That is less than the death rate caused by the Black Death (~50%) and back then Europe managed to carry on.
Yes, especially when I reply on a thread that started with historic predictions of the end of the world (you know, the seas turning to blood, the four horsemen...).
I'm not a native English speaker so it took a number of outraged replies before I remembered that some people use "the end of the world" to mean things other than, well, the end of the world.
You seem to be ignoring human nature. Those few hundred million people are not going to simply accept their fate and go quietly into the night, these climate refugees are going to migrate, and do whatever is required to survive.
The social unrest caused by this will be a powder keg that could and most likely will explode into a major conflict. Humans are the exact same savage beasts we were 70000 years ago. We havent evolved, our knowledge has. Institutions keep us in check and without them... scary stuff. Stuff like the Walking Dead is pretty tame comoared to history. During the dow fall of the Aztec empire, they sacrificed(heavily disputed) between 4000 and 84000 people in just 4 days.
You talk like that that because you expect to be able to rise it out. but you're only a short step away from becoming one of the millions of nobodies whose death you shrug off.
Unfortunately, the rate of change is more rapid than anything that we can obviously see in the past, and this is very bad news for the ecosystem's ability adapt. Second, it's not completely clear to me that what this stabilisation temperature that you talk about will be. It we get into a nice vicious circle with permafrosts releasing methane deposits, things get very bad very quickly. Whether you think it will will 'wipe out' modern civilisation rather depends on what you think 'wipe out' means. Certainly civilisation is likely to be much less widely spread across the globe. Wars disease and ecological issues will compound the problems. If not completely wiped out, then greatly reduced and impoverished.
It has been warmer... But we've never been so many people on this planet who really depend so much on a stable climate. We are really pushing this planet to the edge right now even without climate change.
If the climate changes, we all have to adapt. Cities with millions near the ocean or in extremely hot areas will have to be relocated. Existing agricultural land will become unusable, and we'll have to come up with new land. We are already using up most the planet's fertile ground on agriculture, so it is not like we can just start using the desert. So you'll have migration and food crisis on your hands...
I don't know what your definitions of "wipe out" og "end of the world" are, but it will definitely not be without significant issues.
You don't think it will, but you actually don't know. Scientists don't know, because we don't know what tipping points there are. Please don't act like you have a crystal ball.
I believe in climate change, however, I'm not sure what the big deal is. It is a natural byproduct of increasing prosperity. Humanity can cope with the effects, and do so with relative ease. As a whole, the world gets better every day. Furthermore, the hyperbole (can extreme hyperbole exist or is that redundant?) that has developed around climate change is deeply troubling to me. The fear mongering and impending doom predictions remind me of religious extremists and worry me greatly. Look no further than comments right here which extrapolate a crack in an ice shelf to literally witnessing the end of the world as we know it. That so many people accept this detached extremism concerns me far more than weird weather patterns or a bunch of beach homes being exposed to storm damage.
Rising sea levels will swallow major coastal cities, not just "beach homes". Entire island nations will cease to exist.
Acidifying oceans are destroying marine ecosystems necessary for generating food and oxygen for the rest of the planet.
Rising temperatures might cause the release of frozen methane from ocean floor deposits and arctic permafrost. Methane accelerates greenhouse warming.
Melting ice could dilute the salt balance that drives major ocean currents and plunge Europe into an ice age while the planet bakes.
People are alarmed because the Titanic of society is cruising calmly toward an iceberg, and it takes an awfully long time to change direction, and no amount of technological advancement can swallow trillions of dollars in floods, droughts, famines, and barren seas.
> Rising sea levels will swallow major coastal cities, not just "beach homes".
Perhaps more importantly, rising sea levels mean salinity intruding on inland fresh water supplies and low-lying agricultural land, literally salting the earth.
See, your problem here is that you consider climate change something you can believe in or not, and consider it as such.
But facts and climate processes have no such bias and our understanding of these phenomena have increased greatly in the past decades.
Here's the thing: the fearmongering is not only justified, it is underplayed.
What do you think will happen to the planet when the climate patterns are taken out of a system of stable equilibrium? What happens when the ocean's acidity level crosses the historical threshold under which most of the oxygen-generating plankton on this planet has existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
I'm sorry, but belief has nothing to do with it. We understand very well what the impact on each individual ecosystem this will have, and we have a fairly good idea that the negative interactions amongst each other are going to be even worse.
Recent interviews with most climate scientists have shown that most are seriously depressed, and many have been literally contemplating suicide, or decided to not have children. And these are people who don't have any sort of political agenda in play and would rather live in a reasonably safe and sound world.
The fundamental political problem is that people have difficulty understanding exponential phenomena. Climate change has been very much exponential given the increase in carbon in the atmosphere, and it has been predicted for a long time that the feedback cycles are going to be accelerating things more and more.
Well, we're finally there. A ton of coral reef ecosystems are dying, most coastal ecosystems have changed because of ocean acidification. We're starting to see conditions of permanent drought in the Western USA, and so on and so forth for many different systems.
I use the word "believe" because it is something that is inherently observable to me or you, whether you like it or not. You rely on other people to tell you it's real, so when you say "we understand" what you really mean is "people other than me understand". It's like saying I believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Can I observe it? No. But a few guys won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for discovering that this was true, so I believe them.
In any event, I'll gladly take the other side of any of these bets which predict complete and total anarchy. The despondency of the climate scientists you cite is validation how insane (literally) people have become over this, it's not additional evidence of the true state of the world.
You say we're "finally here" but the world is fine in the grand scheme of things - that is both observable and demonstrable. You can choose to be depressed and miserable if you want though; I couldn't get you to deviate from your beliefs any more than I could convince a Baptist minister that his religion is nonsense.
> In any event, I'll gladly take the other side of any of these bets which predict complete and total anarchy. The despondency of the climate scientists you cite is validation how insane (literally) people have become over this, it's not additional evidence of the true state of the world.
So basically you're choosing to willfully ignore the experts' opinions when they're freaking out after having literally spoken to the public for this for 3 decades and having warned of the consequences of inaction.
No, your position is insanity. You're essentially denying things because your worldly observations end where your eyes stop seeing.
If you went to the Andes and hiked and looked at the glaciers, your opinion would be completely different.
If you went to Australian Reef and saw how literally most of the life that used to be there is now completely dead, your opinion would be different.
If you were able to see the levels of the water tables in California, your opinion would be different.
Your problem is that your vision is completely buffered by living in an environment mostly controlled by humans, buffered from the variance of the world.
"The world is fine", you mean right here right now? So far the stunning thing is the derivatives / rates of change, not the values as such. But rates of change is not something to scuff about. If you are speeding off a cliff you don't go "so far everything looks good" just as long as you are not over the edge yet.
In 30 years if you regret these words, I hope you do not go saying "there was no way I could have known give the data at the time". Because that would not be true.
>> your problem here is that you consider climate
>> change something you can believe in or not, and
>> consider it as such.
> GP didn't say anything like that. You're all jumping
> on him in a strawman beat-down party.
> Humanity can cope with the effects, and do so with relative ease.
While humanity will cope in the sense that the species will probably go on existing, the current human population of this planet only exists because a large number of ecological parameters are within the sweet spot. Anything that disrupts global food supply, anything that disrupts fresh water supply, will kill billions of people in a matter of decades.
Rising sea levels will displace a moderate percentage of our population and be the catalyst for a new round of wars, but the real danger lies in the fact that we're in the middle of a major extinction event that's increasingly likely to leave most of the population in starvation.
So you're here to troll, really. You have a "belief", completely unfounded and unjustified, and you think it's better than what's being understood by science at its pinnacle.
> It is a natural byproduct of increasing prosperity.
Lots of other people have pointed out flaws in your reasoning and how privileged your perspective is. I just wanted to add to the dogpile discussion by pointing out this is simply absurd.
We have LONG since converted the first world to a primarily electric society, and as science advances an electric society becomes ever cheaper and more imaginable. Our fascination with fossil fuel in all things is much more about the control offered to people who hold lands rich in the energy resources we use.
We found the use of our friend fire useful early on for portably moving the energy necessary to make mechanical energy, but as time has gone on we've found many viable ways to replace its use. Solar power has been cost effective near the equator since before anyone talking here was born, Shuman worked out the details of a reflection-powered low pressure steam turbine with excellent properties before 1920. You can build a shockingly effective solar engine in your local techshop, if your goal is to make mechanical energy and you aren't too far off the equator. That's 100 year old technology!
This idea that a carbon liberation is the norm of industrialization is a fiction sold to you by industrialists who have a scarce resource. Time and time again, we've already shown that industrialization progresses towards REDUCING our notion of waste and INCREASING efficiency, and yet the social discourse is about the inevitability of environmental impact and "recouping R&D costs."
Humanity can cope with the effects, and do so with relative ease.
Don't assume that all countries have the same resources. Two thirds of the world population live in developing countries. How exactly will they cope with the effects of climate change remains to be seen.
Why do people here always say that? Are you expecting the consequences of Global Warming to follow some predictable pattern? Or that previously existing capital will suffice to fight long-lasting changes?
I can't imagine any of the above being true. Maybe for a short while, but not on the long term.
> Or that previously existing capital will suffice to fight long-lasting changes
This. The Netherlands has been fighting high sea levels, and winning, for centuries. Rich places like NYC and the SF Bay can do so as well.
And of course: If food is only 15% of your disposable income, a doubling of global food prices is a nuisance; if it is 60%, a doubling of prices sends your family into starvation.
I'm saying that people in richer countries will feel the effects of global warming less - not saying the effects of global warming will be small. A few reasons are: Fewer people live close to the coast. We spend relatively speaking less money on food, so we can more easily afford higher prices. More advanced agriculture can better adapt to higher temperatures. Stable governments can more effectively change and enforce policies, etc.
Overall, I was trying to point that the planet changing may cause rich countries to stop being rich. You sped less on food today, but if you are unlucky and food prices go up, the extra expending can easily descapitalize you.
As colder freshwater flows into the ocean, it has the potential to massively disrupt weather-stabilizing currents.
The reason why the Mediterranean stays as warm (and agriculturally productive) as it is year round (while being at the same longitude as DC) is the North Atlantic Current, which has exhibited signs of slowing.
Considering all that it is somewhat suprising that most of us have done so very little about it. Everyone still drives, uses lots of dirty energy etc. The argument on both side is all about some abstract position rather than deciding what we should actually do. This is particular pernicious with climate change as it is all so distant.
I would rather we focused more on things closer to home with more direct impacts on peoples lives. That diesel engine is not just heating up the atmosphere it is spewing out toxic gas that is slowly poisoning people. The same is true of coal power stations. I want to spend a little of the benefits of prosperity on making my world a little safer and cleaner. It is just good hygeine!
The responses were as grandiose as I expected. Start bashing a religion and the zealots come out in force.
Another lamentable issue in all this is that it's become impossible to have a calm, reasoned discussion about any of this. Take anything other than an extreme view and you get shouted down as a luddite.
An extreme view like "Even though widespread measurements of our planet indicate rapid, ecologically disastrous change is underway; hey lets do nothing in case it wasn't our fault"? 'Extreme' depends on the particular understanding of the situation I guess.
Dude, you're acting like you can't hear the absolutely, completely overwhelming scientific evidence. That makes you, by definition, a luddite.
There is literally nothing to debate. No temperature charts that are not showing incredible amounts of energy being concentrated in the atmosphere and the oceans. Nothing that contradicts the incredible amount of CO2 accumulating in the oceans.
The prediction of doom is not just a single one; it is an ensemble of dozens of models with multiple, variable parameters that assume great levels of uncertainty, and they still point at the same place.
What are you exactly trying to demonstrate? What proof do you have that the overwhelming evidence and the (thus far) very succesful predictions of climate are wrong?
You will die many years from now, generally prosperous but completely miserable. I pity you and the misery you peddle. It is sad to see minds turn to mush like this.
While we're talking doomsday scenarios: The Limits to Growth 'standard run' model from the 70s comes with a global collapse mid-century. We're roughly on track...
What we will have to do regardless is deal with rising storm surges and sea levels. Pretty much every major city will need a significant storm barriers. We should consider land buy back on easily flooded harbor barriers, and perhaps even abandonment of smaller coastal communities.
Unfortunately, the everglades are sunk, and Florida will become increasingly unlivable, as salt water infiltrates almost all groundwater supplies.