[Rancid]

Its a long transition involving many generations. You and @Rancid are talking like we are going to experience a plot-scenario like The Day After Tomorrow.

Even in a slow transition, the poor, uneducated and weak will be left behind. Look at the dumbass coal miners in west virginia. They are clinging to a dying industry. Same will happen with the urban poor and uneducated.

[SolarCross]

It's not hysterics, it very well could cause severe drought and famine and extreme weather all over the planet that could lead to mass death and tremendous social upheaval like nobody's ever seen. That's all completely plausible. I'm not saying it's definitely gonna happen just that there's a significant possibility that it could. If you're claiming that it's so unlikely that it's not worth considering then you just don't know what you're talking about.

The net effect of polar melting is more water being available to life not less, the net effect will be less drought. If the people of the Sahara, Arabian and Gobi deserts want to know where their water went they can find it at the poles.

[B0ycey]

I'm just going on the article's reasoning based on previous hot-house epochs during earth's long history (none of which I believe ).

Thus, during other hot-house phases with X amount C02 ppm the conditions were P

If X, then P.

P has been higher bio-diversity, more water (less ice), and edenic conditions (by human standards).

This is how the scenarios were characterized.

Why should anyone believe otherwise when the only examples of such global-warming conditions in earth's history were cased of higher bio-diversity and more tropical conditions?

It is the speed of change that will cause mass extinction. If creatures do not have time to evolve in their new surroundings, they go extinct. Changes in Earth's history have always been gradual - until now!

[Rancid]

It is the speed of change that will cause mass extinction. If creatures do not have time to evolve in their new surroundings, they go extinct. Changes in Earth's history have always been gradual - until now!

Very true. Seems like VS is assuming animals will just "figure it out".

[Sivad]

The net effect

The net effect of massive changes in global weather patterns in a brief span of time will be total fucking chaos for human civilization.

[SolarCross]

The net effect of massive changes in global weather patterns in a brief span of time will be total fucking chaos for human civilization.

That depends on how fast it happens, but generally we are pretty adaptive and sometimes a bit of a shake up is good to give us some challenge to overcome. Life is pretty easy these days, we could do with a challenging situation to shape us up and keep us lean and mean.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is the speed of change that will cause mass extinction. If creatures do not have time to evolve in their new surroundings, they go extinct. Changes in Earth's history have always been gradual - until now

The net effect of massive changes in global weather patterns in a brief span of time will be total fucking chaos for human civilization.

The speed of change to climates has been rapid in the past, like the mini ice age in Europe, that was a relatively rapid transition not unlike our own, @SolarCross already provided a graph to that effect.

Very true. Seems like VS is assuming animals will just "figure it out".

No, several species will go extinct, so what? The end of the ice age was a net positive for world ecology and mankind even if the sabre-tooth cat couldn't make the adjustment.

Would that argument have cut the mustard among the cave men? "We really keep the ice age from ending so we don't lost all the sabre-tooth tigers."

It's not hysterics, it very well could cause severe drought and famine and extreme weather all over the planet that could lead to mass death and tremendous social upheaval like nobody's ever seen. That's all completely plausible. I'm not saying it's definitely gonna happen just that there's a significant possibility that it could. If you're claiming that it's so unlikely that it's not worth considering then you just don't know what you're talking about.

Severe weather kills people all the time, I am only going off the article's arguments, that global warming will create a better ecological system on earth and more enjoyable conditions by human standards, this based on previous hot-house climates in earth's history.

How is this complicated?

If global warming creates a net positive state for the future of the world, how can we keep treating it like a net-negative and demand its being curbed?

That sounds dumb.

Even in a slow transition, the poor, uneducated and weak will be left behind.

Yes, because of bad decision making.

1. Poor people can still see that there streets are flooded. You don't need money to "walk out" of the city. Thats silliness. Especially when you have 100 years to figure that shit out.

2. You don't need to be educated to see that your streets are flooded. You don't need a Ph.D to "walk out" of the city. Thats silliness. Especially when you have 100 years to figure that shit out.

3. You don't need to be physically strong to ask someone to carry your ass out of a flooded city when you have a 100 year warning. You can pay them, or convince them, obviously if you are infirm you might have trouble, but you will also have trouble in a hundred different scenarios.

Look at the dumbass coal miners in west virginia. They are clinging to a dying industry.

Sure. Bad Decisions. Not defending it, though Trump might be giving them some respite. WV has had one the best economic recoveries under Trump of any other state.

Same will happen with the urban poor and uneducated.

Correct, but that confirms my point. Those who are stubborn enough to behave in a stupid manner will be casualties during a transition to a stage that is still a net positive ecologically.

That is still the point of the OP.

Global warming will be better for the world's environment and humanity, stupid people failing to adapt to this positive change does not negate this fact.

[B0ycey]

We have had a heat wave in the UK. Already causing crops to fail. Unless you like strawberries. Nonetheless, arid lands become sterile. Even strawberries won't grow then. So much for bumper yields

[Victoribus Spolia]

Time to move then pussies.

..... or hold out until England become Cancun.

[B0ycey]

I think VS wore his special glasses when reading that article. The OP was not showing the advantages of global warming. It was highlighting the dangers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The OP was not showing the advantages of global warming. It was highlighting the dangers.

Sure, and it did a great job of convincing me that the hysteria is silly. When the author describes our doomsday end-of-time climate-change-catastrophe and apocalypse with "warm waters, greater bio-diversity, and edenic like conditions" that "doesn't sound so bad." It really makes me want to stay up all night to avoid the nightmares of my impending doom.

[Sivad]

The speed of change to climates has been rapid in the past, like the mini ice age in Europe, that was a relatively rapid transition not unlike our own

Beginning in the spring of 1315, cold weather and torrential rains decimated crops and livestock across Europe. Class warfare and political strife destabilized formerly prosperous countries as millions of people starved, setting the stage for the crises of the Late Middle Ages. According to reports, some desperate Europeans resorted to cannibalism during the so-called Great Famine, which persisted until the early 1320s.


Typically considered an outbreak of the bubonic plague, which is transmitted by rats and fleas, the Black Death wreaked havoc on Europe, North Africa and Central Asia in the mid-14th century. It killed an estimated 75 million people, including 30 to 60 percent of Europe’s population. Some experts have tied the outbreak to the food shortages of the Little Ice Age, which purportedly weakened human immune systems while allowing rats to flourish.

Manchu Conquest of China
In the first half of the 17th century, famines and floods caused by unusually cold, dry weather enfeebled China’s ruling Ming Dynasty. Unable to pay their taxes, peasants rose up in revolt and by 1644 had overthrown the imperial authorities. Manchurian invaders from the north capitalized on the power vacuum by crossing the Great Wall, allying with the rebels and establishing the Qing Dynasty.

Witch Hunts
In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII recognized the existence of witches and echoed popular sentiment by blaming them for the cold temperatures and resulting misfortunes plaguing Europe. His declaration ushered in an era of hysteria, accusations and executions on both sides of the Atlantic. Historians have shown that surges in European witch trials coincided with some of the Little Ice Age’s most bitter phases during the 16th and 17th centuries.

Thirty Years’ War
Among other military conflicts, the brutal Thirty Years’ War between Protestants and Catholics across central Europe has been linked to the Little Ice Age. Chilly conditions curbed agricultural production and inflated grain prices, fueling civil discontent and weakening the economies of European powers. These factors indirectly plunged much of the continent into war from 1618 to 1648, according to this model.

French Revolution
As the 18th century drew to a close, two decades of poor cereal harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor in France. Many expressed their desperation and resentment toward a regime that imposed heavy taxes yet failed to provide relief by rioting, looting and striking. Tensions erupted into the French Revolution of 1789, which some historians have connected to the Little Ice Age.


On the other side of the Atlantic, the year without a summer convinced many New England residents to relocate. Horrified by escalating grain prices and June snowfalls, they settled in the Midwestern United States, providing a boost to the expansion movement that had begun two decades earlier.

https://www.history.com/news/little-ice ... nsequences

So plague, famine, war, mass migration, violent extremism, extreme social upheaval. Now in the modern era, that would mean billions of lives lost and billions more subject to unimaginable misery and terror.

Severe weather kills people all the time

Yeah, and a dramatic rise in severe weather events would be catastrophic.

I am only going off the article's arguments, that global warming will create a better ecological system on earth and more enjoyable conditions by human standards, this based on previous hot-house climates in earth's history.

How is this complicated?

Because there might not be a human civilization around to enjoy those conditions. The complication is the transition could be devastating.

If global warming creates a net positive state for the future of the world, how can we keep treating it like a net-negative and demand its being curbed?

That sounds dumb.

No, dumb is ignoring our impact on a extremely complex system that we we don't fully understand which we are completely at the mercy of and has the potential to throw our entire global civilization into chaos.

[SolarCross]

If you were human-like aliens with super technology looking to terraform Earth to make it sustain more life then you'd be looking for a way to melt the frozen water at the poles and release all the carbon sequestered out of the atmosphere into the earth by millions of years of stupid plants not knowing what they are doing. The perfect terraforming solution would be to dig up all the buried atmospheric carbon and burn it to re-release it into the atmosphere while extracting useful work from the energy transformations in the process. Which is exactly what we are doing!

[Victoribus Spolia]

The perfect terraforming solution would be to dig up all the buried atmospheric carbon and burn it to re-release it into the atmosphere while extracting useful work from the energy transformations in the process. Which is exactly what we are doing!

But that could cause a mass extinction of certain bacteria @SolarCross !!

You moral monster!

So plague, famine, war, mass migration, violent extremism, extreme social upheaval. Now in the modern era, that would mean billions of lives lost and billions more subject to unimaginable misery and terror.

Once again, I don't deny violence and death will occur, but let me ask you straight-up; was the end of the ice age a net positive for mankind and world ecology (as it pertains to the volume of bio-diversity)? YES or NO?

NOTE: the rapid changes in climate conditions discussed, especially the mini-ice age, were not man-made.

Either way, if global warming is a net positive ecologically, but could cause a rough transition, the solution to global warming isn't to stop it, but make the transition easier, is it not?

The problem in those scenarios isn't ecological, its reactionary and human.

poor cereal harvests does not necessitate a genocidal rampage, but that is something stupid people would do.

Thats the point. The problem is human reaction to the transition, not the result on the other side of the tunnel, ecologically-speaking.

[annatar1914]

I am actually interested in the specific opinions of certain PoFo members on this:

@Saeko, @Potemkin, @annatar1914, @B0ycey, @Bulaba Jones, @Sivad, @Godstud, @SolarCross, @Albert,

I'm not worried about it at all, VS, in fact I find it interesting that it seems to be Providential that the World is returning to it's normal state, that of before the universal Flood/ Great Cataclysm, whatever man has called it.

[SolarCross]

I wonder if future people will say as a blessing: "May your hills become islands".

[Sivad]

Once again, I don't deny violence and death will occur, but let me ask you straight-up; was the end of the ice age a net positive for mankind and world ecology (as it pertains to the volume of bio-diversity)? YES or NO?

That's beside the point, at that period in human history there was no civilization to be wiped out. Nobody was settled, no societies were dependent on agriculture, every person on the planet was a migratory hunter-gatherer. A change like that in our world would be catastrophic for global civilization and could potentially lead to the extinction of the human race. It doesn't matter if there is an edenic paradise on the other side of the apocalypse if there's nobody around to enjoy it.

Another thing to consider is that it's only a matter of time before an asteroid, a mega-eruption, a gamma ray burst, or whatever wipes everything out on the planet so even if people do survive, the centuries a collapse and reboot would cost us could be the difference between the survival and the extinction of the species. We're in an extremely precarious situation on this planet, we might not have time for that kind of a set back to our technological and cultural development.

NOTE: the rapid changes in climate conditions discussed, especially the mini-ice age, were not man-made.

Yeah, shit happens, that's all the more reason to be proactive and take control of the situation as much as possible.

Either way, if global warming is a net positive ecologically, but could cause a rough transition, the solution to global warming isn't to stop it, but make the transition easier, is it not?

It depends on how rough the transition is likely to be, but because stupid assholes on every side of this issue have done everything in their power to politicize it and cover it in bullshit there are no credible assessments of those probabilities.

The problem in those scenarios isn't ecological, its reactionary and human.

It's both, the one drives the other.

poor cereal harvests does not necessitate a genocidal rampage, but that is something stupid people would do.

It's guaranteed to happen so you have to factor it into any realistic scenario.

Thats the point. The problem is human reaction to the transition, not the result on the other side of the tunnel, ecologically-speaking.

Again, the transition is the problem, until you have an honest, sensible range of projections for that anything beyond that isn't worth considering.

[Albert]

Do not forget Atlantis, never forget Atlantis.

[Sivad]

Do not forget Atlantis, never forget Atlantis.

Climate and the Late Bronze Collapse: New Evidence from the Southern Levant
http://archaeology.tau.ac.il/wp-content ... e_2013.pdf

The Late Bronze Age collapse involved a dark-age transition period in the Near East, Asia Minor, Aegean region, North Africa, Caucasus, Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, a transition which historians believe was violent, sudden, and culturally disruptive. The palace economy of the Aegean region and Anatolia that characterised the Late Bronze Age disintegrated, transforming into the small isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages.

The half-century between c. 1200 and 1150 BC saw the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, of the Kassite dynasty of Babylonia, of the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and the Levant, and of the Egyptian Empire;[1] the destruction of Ugarit and the Amorite states in the Levant, the fragmentation of the Luwian states of western Asia Minor, and a period of chaos in Canaan.[2] The deterioration of these governments interrupted trade routes and severely reduced literacy in much of the known world.[3]

In the first phase of this period, almost every city between Pylos and Gaza was violently destroyed, and many abandoned, including Hattusa, Mycenae, and Ugarit.[4] According to Robert Drews:

Within a period of forty to fifty years at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the twelfth century almost every significant city in the eastern Mediterranean world was destroyed, many of them never to be occupied again.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bron ... ble_causes

[Saeko]

If Climate Change Is Real, I Want It.

I am agnostic on the question of climate change, as a believer in sustainable agricultural i must be sensitive to changes in micro-ecology and weather conditions and cannot deny, based on the account of old-timers, that things aren't quite like they used to be. This article however, reinforces my general attitude of "I don't care, even if it is true."

The premise of this article was meant to be "informative" discussing all the potentials of a future hot-house scenario for the earth based on historic precendent and the levels of C02 in the atmosphere and overrall earth temperature.

The author discusses several scenarios of climate change and global warming, and to be honest, even the most exterme scenarios sound fine with me. Quite literally, the main argument by the author is not that climate change would be apocalyptic for all life, but that the transition will be bitch for urban dwellers and polar bears. Big Whoop.

Based on what I read (notice my emphasis in the article), I think I want climate change and global warming. Its not a problem, its awesome.

In fact, I think I might go out and burn some tires.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/hothouse-ear ... 10050.html

*Starts Looking Up Gas-Guzzling Trucks Online*

How can anybody be this fucking stupid? Of course it sounds fine, you're reading literal propaganda. Don't waste my time with this shit.