The debate on climate change is now over. The verdict: Too late to do anything about it!

[BlackSand]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee.....

.

.​

 

[ReinyDays]

I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

More accurate computer models ...

 

[ding]

...it will become a hostile place for humans.

How so?

 

[ding]

I didn't say that. In some cases warmer could be much worse.

How so? A warmer world means a wetter world. Whereas a slightly cooler world (less than 2C) is one with extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation with 3,000 nft thick ice sheets over all of Canada, NE US, Midwest US, parts of Asia and Europe.

 

[Woodznutz]

How so?

Floods, droughts, storms, etc. Also some farm fields are one chemical away from being dead.

 

[ding]

Yes, we know what happens on THAT side of the distribution. We don't have a handy word yet for what our society will have to deal with if the temperature goes a couple of degrees warmer globally.

Sure we do. It would be called a normal interglacial cycle.

 

[ding]

Floods, droughts, storms, etc.

We have those now and have always had those. I'm not seeing a hostile environment for humans.

 

[ding]

Also some farm fields are one chemical away from being dead.

What does that have to do with atmospheric CO2?

 

[Woodznutz]

What does that have to do with atmospheric CO2?

Chemicals are used to beat back nature.

 

[ding]

Chemicals are used to beat back nature.

So CO2 is responsible for that?

You seem like a caring person. What if you found out it wasn't atmospheric CO2 that was responsible for the recent warming trend but instead it was urbanization and deforestation? What would you argue we should do if it was deforestation and creating concrete jungles and not fossil fuels?

 

[ReinyDays]

Chemicals are used to beat back nature.

Chemicals replace nature ... the nature we've already murdered ... in cold blood ... bastard humans ...

 

[Woodznutz]

So CO2 is responsible for that?

You seem like a caring person. What if you found out it wasn't atmospheric CO2 that was responsible for the recent warming trend but instead it was urbanization and deforestation? What would you argue we should do if it was deforestation and creating concrete jungles and not fossil fuels?

I'm addressing everything that's destructive, not just CO2.

 

[Oddball]

I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

More moving goalposts.

 

[ding]

I'm addressing everything that's destructive, not just CO2.

Urbanization is destructive. I don't see you arguing against building cities.

 

[Woodznutz]

Urbanization is destructive. I don't see you arguing against building cities.

I have, quoting this scripture.

Isaiah 5:8
"Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

Nothing wrong with cities if they are planned and built properly.

 

[ReinyDays]

I have, quoting this scripture.

Isaiah 5:8
"Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

Nothing wrong with cities if they are planned and built properly.

Does this include Jerusalem? ...

 

[alexa]

No matter where we are in this process, cutting back GHG emissions will have some benefit. We have very likely reached a point in which severe effects can no longer be avoided but that DOES NOT MEAN we should do nothing.

According to the IPCC we if we are still using the same amount of fossil fuel in seven or 8 years it will be impossible for us to avoid the worse of climate change so their definitely is something to work for in stopping them but it needs to be done soon. Then there is adaptation. People are learning how to get the same affect using much less water for instance. We have a choice. We can work to make the necessary changes and there will still be a world, a different one yes, but one that can be lived in. Ignore this and children born now will see no old age.

 

[alexa]

But human society didn't exist then. And if it had developed in 7000ppm CO2 it wouldn't be a problem.

We developed our society in a relatively stable group of climates over the last 14,000 years. Local climate change has happened and often to devestating effect (see the Little Ice Age etc.) What happens when we GLOBALLY change climate quickly?

History tells us it usually isn't good.



Actually the greatest expansion of life was probably at the Pre-Cambrain/Cambrian explosion. But that doesn't address your point about the value of CO2. That isn't the topic. The topic is related to CHANGE in climate. If climate changes too quickly people are unable to adapt and bad things happen. Resources get constrained, agriculture suffers (while warmer more CO2 environments are not bad for plants, not all plants like the same conditions and that's agriculture. Ag requires that you know where you can plant your food crops. If the climate changes your food crops may n o longer grow.)

So it doesn't matter how high it's been before. No one is saying there's some "optimum" CO2 level...just that we need to keep it from warming us too quickly and changing the climate on us too fast to adapt to.

Does that makes sense?

You've forgotten the importance of insects. They have been dying off at an alarming rate. Bees too in many places. Without the right kind of insects there will be no agriculture.

 

[ding]

I have, quoting this scripture.

Isaiah 5:8
"Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

Nothing wrong with cities if they are planned and built properly.

You mean besides creating an asphalt jungle which absorbs more heat and creates an urban heat island effect?

So apparently you are not addressing everything that's destructive. You are only addressing what you have been told to address.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Sure we do. It would be called a normal interglacial cycle.

Not necessarily.