Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse' says report

[morss_4]

1) Your idea of the 'near term' is strange, which is problematic here.

I don't think it's all that strange.

Regardless, you know what I mean when I say it now, so it shouldn't be a problem.

2) We would perpetually have to face to consequences of the general problem of living unsustainably, perennial issues with perennial costs - that makes it very likely to be more costly than if we learn to live sustainably in the near term.

I don't think anything is going to happen "perpetually." Like I said, if all else fails eventually nature will decide the issue for us when we run out of fossil fuels (a scenario which is not that far off).

3) The cost of the consequences in terms of human lives weigh heavily against losses that might be incurred from economic contraction due to shifting demand brought about by a change in people's mindset.

Assuming responsibility from Western governments (and, we have to in either scenario) I don't think there will be a large cost in human lives.

4) I am not assuming some drastic measures that are completely impractical and will not be carried out anyway.

However, under certain projections this actually means you are also admitting that you will not stop global warming in the near term anyway and will have no choice but to treat the symptoms.

5) The attitude that we can deal with the consequences later and just go on pretty much in the same direction now is only going to perpetuate the problem.

Yes, but that may well be better than trying to fix said problem.

6) You seem to be holding out for some hope that some technology will render the problems irrelevant soon anyway, which is not a given and which does not prevent more crises from cropping up again in the future as long as we continue to flourish on this planet.

If we do not begin to replace fossil fuels at some point in the next hundred years or so global warming will be the least of our issues anyway. Billions of people will likely die when large scale industrial transport and agriculture grind to a halt.

 

[Kerozine]

Uhh, we are talking about the problem of global warming, right? If something is causing the problem, that thing isn't the problem itself. It's the cause.

Well, I could care less about globalised warmings as it is merely a subset of the overall trend of climate change. The latter of which is apparently caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[Archbob]

Earth goes constantly through a cycle of temperature variations. Changes that result in several degrees drop and rise in global temperature can occur in as little as a century, even a decade or two.

 

[Kerozine]

Earth goes constantly through a cycle of temperature variations. Changes that result in several degrees drop and rise in global temperature can occur in as little as a century, even a decade or two.

Name of phenomenon?

 

[Dandenoth]

I don't believe in global warming, sorry.

 

[Maxxie]

I don't believe in global warming, sorry.

Isn't that sort of like saying "I don't believe in the planet Venus."? The action is known, and the causes are obvious outisde of manufactured controversial media reports, but even that is irrelevent to dealing with the impacts.

 

[Archbob]

Name of phenomenon?

There's a variety of reasons including plate tectonics, volcanic activity, change of ocean currents, etc, etc.

Its happened before in Earth's past.

The earth periodically goes in and out of ice ages.

 

[Kerozine]

There's a variety of reasons including plate tectonics, volcanic activity, change of ocean currents, etc, etc.

Its happened before in Earth's past.

The earth periodically goes in and out of ice ages.

Okay, well, I'm going to have to ask for some sources..

 

[Maxxie]

There's a variety of reasons including plate tectonics, ...

Excuse me, but WTH?! Either you're badly misreading some scientific notation on the time that requires or you have absolutely no idea about this topic. The concentration of CO2 (greenhouse gas, again, see Venus for the planetary effect of an excessive concentration of CO2) in the atmosphere now is higher than it was for the nearly 650,000 years before the industrial revolution that we have ice core evidence for (see http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html). It might be even longer now with new research.

I've long thought that this needs a new name to make people aware of the complications we'll have to adapt to, maybe something like "Total atmospheric and oceanic disruption" with a dash of "less fresh water, food, soil, and living space" and sprinkling of "aggervated farmland and water availability disputes (the physical problems in Somalia and Israel-Palestine conflicts, and almost all regional conflicts)." Is that too long?

 

[Archbob]

Excuse me, but WTH?! Either you're badly misreading some scientific notation on the time that requires or you have absolutely no idea about this topic. The concentration of CO2 (greenhouse gas, again, see Venus for the planetary effect of an excessive concentration of CO2) in the atmosphere now is higher than it was for the nearly 650,000 years before the industrial revolution that we have ice core evidence for (see http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html). It might be even longer now with new research.

I've long thought that this needs a new name to make people aware of the complications we'll have to adapt to, maybe something like "Total atmospheric and oceanic disruption" with a dash of "less fresh water, food, soil, and living space" and sprinkling of "aggervated farmland and water availability disputes (the physical problems in Somalia and Israel-Palestine conflicts, and almost all regional conflicts)." Is that too long?

No, I haven't misread scientific notations. Ice ages can come on in as little as 100 years. The Eruption of Toba of instance reduced Earth temperature by as much a 5 degrees centigrade for many years by itself. That happened in like a day.

650,000 years is still a Blip in geology time. Being the highest in 650,000 years could very well be a natural occurence of the earth. Although, I won't deny there is good chance it is the doing of us.

Past ice ages and warm periods have occurred on Earth -- and all without human intervention.

 

[Maxxie]

I was referring to your mention of plate tectonics as an influence for the ongoing and exceptionally fast environmental disruptions. Plate tectonics doesn't even apply to this. Your hand waving "random topics" wasn't really a legitimate answer either. "Its happened before" doesn't justify your saying that this is the same type of event, or in any way prove that the same influences are responsible. All you're really saying is that there are several ways to influence a complicated system like a planet's environment. So, what were you REALLY trying to say there?

Your new comments are opposed to your old ones now. These disruptions are happening in a way that fits to a fairly basic model that we str liberating stored CO2 from various sources back into the environment at such a high rate they are not all stored and remain in the atmosphere, with predictable effects. Oil and coal are called hydrocarbons for a reason you know.

 

[Archbob]

Take a good look at this graph in the report(the first one on the surface temperature of the north atlantic:

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/modeling-ice-ages-end-lessens-climate-change-worries

Our global temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheight over the last 100 years. That kind of change is not all that uncommon.

I'm saying it could be just we are going into another warm period as a natural cycle. A change of 1 degree in 100 years is not uncommon.

Plate tectonics can indeed change the global climate very quickly. Usually they drift without running too much into each other but once in a while, there will be period of time with much increased volcanic activity that can take place within a century or so. That can in fact have a major effect on weather patterns.

There's not enough conclusive evidence(or really any at all) of our influence on global warming.

 

[aelf]

I don't think it's all that strange.

Regardless, you know what I mean when I say it now, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Well, it hardly makes sense from an economic point of view. People don't plan for 50 years down the road like that, which is why plans usually come in 5-year periods and such.

I don't think anything is going to happen "perpetually." Like I said, if all else fails eventually nature will decide the issue for us when we run out of fossil fuels (a scenario which is not that far off).

And that desirable when we have not learned to live with alternative sources?

Besides, anyone who has any knowledge on ecologism knows that some big issues it raises are the scarcity of resources and the interdependence of human beings and nature. As long as we do not learn to conserve and to live within our means, problems will perpetually crop up.

You're adopting an extremely myopic view, assuming that once we deal with one problem once, that's it.

Assuming responsibility from Western governments (and, we have to in either scenario) I don't think there will be a large cost in human lives.

So you think you can save everyone when the consequences arrive? I'm sorry, that's just naive.

However, under certain projections this actually means you are also admitting that you will not stop global warming in the near term anyway and will have no choice but to treat the symptoms.

Again, 2050 is not the near term. If you say that we probably have to live with it for the next 10 years, you might have something. But still that doesn't mean we can just fiddle around on the problem for the next 10 years.

Yes, but that may well be better than trying to fix said problem.

Seems that it's impossible to make you understand. I outlined 6 main reasons why it isn't. You don't seem to have a good argument to back this up till now, so I guess it's just something you'll hold on to no matter what I say.

If we do not begin to replace fossil fuels at some point in the next hundred years or so global warming will be the least of our issues anyway. Billions of people will likely die when large scale industrial transport and agriculture grind to a halt.

That is part of the general problem of living unsustainably, of course.

Well, I could care less about globalised warmings as it is merely a subset of the overall trend of climate change. The latter of which is apparently caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

Umm, so what's your point?