Climate deniers you can put your heads in the sand and skip. Forget about recent events but seems we are in the end game of climate change - new study saying that even Paris Accords may not stop the worst of climate change - the hothouse earth scenario which would make most of the continental US an uninhabitable dessert and could involve a 200 ft rise in sea level. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/...-of-heading-towards-hothouse-earth-state.html Basic premise is that once you reach 2 degree rise in average temperature, the positive feedback loop begins and cutting CO2 will be too late.
More importantly, what are we doing to reduce the risk. SMH at human society thinking they are not subjected to elimination. I mean, logically we know we are, but we don't really believe it.
Risk reduction. This is like saying we can’t prevent a car accident, therefore we shouldn’t reduce the risk of it.
Dont we have 50 threads on global warming already? All we need is a trifecta of Trump insulting Melo about global warming.
Nothing like your example imo. Cars are unnatural and we are not. At best it is prolong the inevitable. Nearly all living things follow the predator/prey paradigm but for those who don't, perhaps it is within. Maybe it's our nature to hasten the inevitable. i.e., nature has ensured organisms without predators have fail safes/weaknesses to prevent a runaway process. In that case it's not at best prolong the inevitable, instead it's at worst unnaturally prevent the inevitable. From an abstract perspective, nothing belongs to us and nothing owes us anything. Humanity is here to do it's "thing" before the universe is done with us. Check out human history, in general our "thing" is facking **** up. Do do anything else would be unnatural. Actually a higher level of abstraction than mathematics called logic. But you definitely wouldn't understand that so no worries.
We have not even survived for ten million years as a species, if we can just survive for one hundred thousand more years, we would probably be a god race.
Please elaborate on this "logic" you speak of that ignores Newtonian physics and the mathmatics behind it where you can completely bypass it? I want to learn. Are you implying that with common sense(I'm assuming that is what you mean with your "logic" definition) you can guess a general magnitude of the amount of the fluid composition of our atmosphere that will eventually diminish climate change and you with your "logic" have determined that it is impossible while also claiming the mathmatical models that climate scientists use are basically useless and they lack this "logic" that you possess?
well that's my point, the universe has designed us to prevent that. we've got built in fail safes that makes us incapable of reaching such a level. we may go extinct due to our own ego & stupidity and i don't have a problem with that because that's what we are. dude climate change is real, human impact is real, etc... "so what" is the logic i'm talking about. why is human caused impact worse than ice from ice age impact or worse than an asteroid impact? no difference to me. the human arrogance and gall to believe that our impact is worse, that we're the "center of the universe", god's "chosen people", the "best" species, etc... are all laughable. put it this way, just because we can ask a question doesn't mean it matters. natural selection can be much slower than environmental changes (natural or not) so that alone has eliminated millions of species that were unable to evolve quickly again. why should we (just another species) be any different?
You are talking about something that has been discussed before but not with any certainty to say that this is how things are and how things will be. All theories and ideas... We may not reach that level but you are saying that we shouldn't even try? You say things like cars are unnatural but I'd argue nothing in actuality is unnatural. Cars were made from things that the universe has given us. Metals, oil, etc etc. In this way, nothing really is unnatural, all humans have done was used the tools the universe has given us the best to our ability. While you have some point there I don't think your conclusion (That elimination is inevitable so why try to prevent it) is correct or incorrect. You are talking about the Great Filter but this idea doesn't happen if a species just rolls over and accepts its fate. It happens because a species does everything it can to survive, including trying to colonize its solar system and ultimately its galaxy, right? The thing is with the idea is that we don't know if we are ahead or behind the filter and thus we should spend no time worrying about it and doing everything we can to...save our planet and prolong a livable habitat for us....and find a way off the planet so that we can no longer rely on it. You're discussing really big ideas here. If we are behind the filter and close to running into it, then yes, it is inevitable and no matter what we do we are marked for extinction...but we should still try to do everything we can to slip through the filter, that's just how life operates. But if we are ahead of the filter that means that we are one of the first intelligent species in the galaxy/universe and that it is basically ours for the taking if we can figure out a way to take it. Either way, it seems we should ignore the possible existence of a filter and do all we can to survive another day, right?
I was told 2 years ago that it was already too late and that the world was doomed, are we walking that back and saying that now if we repent and accept the religion of anthropogenic climate change that we can be saved and that we can set the globe's thermostat?
Very well said and I respect your opinion. And don't get me wrong. I'm not a nihilist or don't care to the point of living. I take the localized approach for myself and the folks I know. I wish others would do the same. If I take care of my local environment, if my local company is responsible, basically everyone is responsible locally, the rest will take care of itself. However the notion or game plan for dealing with things on a global scale is laughable. Put it this way, if the scientists, europe, environmentalists, wanted people to take them seriously talk to them about their cities, their neighborhoods. Solve environmental problems locally, something tangible they can see and feel. If they would have done that years ago they probably would have gotten what they wanted and what we needed. Instead they focused on global accords and global data and solutions. Well too late now.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/08/hothouse-earth/ excerpts: Policy relevance The apparent point of this paper is to spur ‘action’ on changing the world to prevent this hypothetical consequence ~ 1000 years in the future: decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values. A paper about climate outcomes on a millennial time scale would seem to be completely irrelevant to any conceivable policy. Even if our understanding of all of these climate processes were certain (reality check: we are dealing with deep uncertainty with regards to future climate outcomes), geologic and solar wild cards will almost certainly come into play to produce climate surprises. This paper attempts to spur ‘climate action’ by arguing that the dangerous thresholds of 1.5C, 2.0C articulated by the UNFCCC may be insufficient to prevent this climate domino effect. Well, assuming you believe the climate model projections, there is pretty much no hope for staying below these dangerous thresholds. If you believe Nic Lewis’ estimates of climate sensitivity, then these targets are in reach. If you believe that the large-scale ocean circulations are dominating climate variability on decadal to millennial time scales, then what we do with respect to CO2 emissions won’t make much difference. And at the end of the day, we still don’t understand abrupt climate change. The rational reaction to such deep uncertainty in future climate outcomes is arguably increased resilience and ‘flexibly responsible planetary stewardship.’ A more useful time horizon for policy making is 30 years (~2050) and the end of the 21st century. Speculations about possible scenarios in ~1000 years are not useful for policy making in a prescriptive sense in context of the precautionary principle (see Is Climate change a ruin problem?) JC reflections If the paper wasn’t so heavy on the policy prescriptions, it would be a much more credible contribution. The contribution of the paper was relatively dismissed by several climate scientists on twitter, saying that there was no new science here. This is correct in the sense of no new observations or number crunching. Rather the paper is more in the tradition of a philosophy of science paper, which provides some higher order reflections on evidence. I actually find such integrative, reflective papers to be of great value to spur critical thinking and analysis. Yes, technical contributions to the literature are important. But the biggest deficiency in climate science is how we reason and link evidence about the complex climate system (see my 2011 article Reasoning about climate uncertainty). Philosophy of science can be a big help here (see my paper Climate uncertainty and risk). For almost a decade, I have been arguing that we need to articulate the possible worst case scenario for climate change. Such an articulation would take climate science beyond the restrictions of climate models to understand how the climate system works in terms of interacting feedbacks and also abrupt climate change. We need to bring more discipline (and creativity) to this interesting and important endeavor. The Steffen et al. paper concludes with: Our initial analysis here needs to be underpinned by more in- depth, quantitative Earth System analysis and modeling studies to address three critical questions. (i) Is humanity at risk for pushing the system across a planetary threshold and irreversibly down a Hothouse Earth pathway? (ii) What other pathways might be pos- sible in the complex stability landscape of the Earth System, and what risks might they entail? (iii) What planetary stewardship strategies are required to maintain the Earth System in a manageable Stabilized Earth state?
You're being silly right? You ask a question and then say you don't want discussion? I'll play. Their basic premise is flawed because we've had higher temperatures and CO2 on the planet before and didn't enter a positive feedback loop. Melting glaciers in the Alps and Greenland show settlements from 1000 years ago. Obviously it was warmer back then. It's not the hottest it's ever been, but the hype and snake oil pitches that we must act now might be the loudest ever. Do yourself a favor and remember that every telemarketing and time share sales pitch tells you that you must act now for a reason. By the way, If you have to be afraid of climate change, be afraid of the end of the current interglacial period.
Forget car. Let’s talk about your body. The day you were born, you were destined to die. There is no escape. You can’t prevent it. But then one day you come to an understanding that eating crap will accelerate your death. Do you not stop taking in so much crap to reduce the risk of death? Well maybe you personally don’t, but I think most people will.
Great example because you're right and I do try to take care of my body. But I don't try to "fix" other people's bodies or try to force fast food joints to get shutdown, or push for health laws ex., tobacco, alcohol, drugs, laws etc.. As long as I localize it I can live with whatever happens and that's how I would approach climate change as well.
Unless you can built a sustainable bubble or escape to a habitat plane, climate change can not be localize. So what if other people activities impact your risk of death? What would you do if they are forcing you to eat so much crap? Do nothing about it?
