[quetzalcoatl]

Actually, there is a far better explanation: it is natural.

Yes. Human beings are part of the natural world. Climate change is not supernatural; therefore it is natural.

In its effect, that sort of fatalistic view is no different from climate change denial, since it relieves us of the necessity to take action.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 19798.html

"...This result suggests that stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius (range 3 to 7 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval)..."

The 'necessity to take action' is not necessarily dependent on human politics. A crash in human population, for instance, would be a far more likely mediation than planned global carbon controls. In any event, long-term climate change is already baked in. Barring large scale (and dangerously unpredictable geo-engineering), it will not be physically possible to avert an eventual 20 def F rise.

[anasawad]

@Truth To Power

Flat wrong. It was chaotic for billions of years before humans came along, and it still is.

If that were true, we would be able to predict the climate. We can't, which is why no competent climate scientist agrees with you.

We can predict the climate cycles on the long term. We cant predict the weather as its bound by small fluctuations. Weather and climate are too entirely different things. But in overall, even with the weather, we can predict that weather will be far more extreme with time to come.

"Came up with" is right

That means that the results of the researches showed these results. They didn't made it all up.

[Atlantis]

@Bulaba Jones, yes I think you are further confusing the issue. Instead of simply saying what you mean, you make unfounded accusations, about what I might have read or not have read about what you or I might have understood or said or not understood or said ...

Your simple statements, which I read and which I repeatedly cited:

IMO I think it's already too late to do much about it.

The issue is that those with money don't care.

suggest to me:
a) there will not be the political will to affect change.
b) the rich are to blame and the rest of us don't have to do anything.

I accept that you didn't mean what you wrote, or that it is some sort of code not meant for the uninitiated.

Anyways, I feel this dialog isn't improving the climate one little bit. I will therefore stop guessing and wish you a very good day.

[Atlantis]

The 'necessity to take action' is not necessarily dependent on human politics. A crash in human population, for instance, would be a far more likely mediation than planned global carbon controls. In any event, long-term climate change is already baked in. Barring large scale (and dangerously unpredictable geo-engineering), it will not be physically possible to avert an eventual 20 def F rise.

I don't believe that the solution is to be found in ecofascism (involving a reduction of the human population) or in scale geo-engineering.

The only possible approach is a combination of sustainability; zero or low growth models; innovation in green technology, digital technology as well as in the economics and social fields, in combination with energy savings and carbon sequestration by land use and sustainable farming.

[Donna]

There are already "philanthropic" projects underway to sterilize parts of the global south. It appears to exclusively involve the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their unorthodox approaches to alleviating the hardships of poverty. I'm not sure if this counts as eco-fascism or not. As a globalist initiative it is still in its wishy-washy TED Talks phase.

[Atlantis]

There are already "philanthropic" projects underway to sterilize parts of the global south. It appears to exclusively involve the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their unorthodox approaches to alleviating the hardships of poverty. I'm not sure if this counts as eco-fascism or not. As a globalist initiative it is still in its wishy-washy TED Talks phase.

The only way to reduce birth rates is by increasing prosperity. That brings us full-cycle with the refugee crisis and international inequality. Anyways, from what I understand, Quetzal is talking about reducing the population not the birth rate.

[Pants-of-dog]

I was simply clarifying what you meant when you said there is no need to do anything about emissions.

Now, what do you propose to do about the i-Kiribati?

[Suntzu]

Global warming . . . errr, climate change is not going to be the end of man. It will be the population bomb. We can't go on doubling the population every 50 - 75 years.

[ralfy]

Global warming . . . errr, climate change is not going to be the end of man. It will be the population bomb. We can't go on doubling the population every 50 - 75 years.

It will be a combination of the effects of global warming, environmental damage, overpopulation, overconsumption, and a resource crunch:

"Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

[quetzalcoatl]

I don't believe that the solution is to be found in ecofascism (involving a reduction of the human population) or in scale geo-engineering.

The only possible approach is a combination of sustainability; zero or low growth models; innovation in green technology, digital technology as well as in the economics and social fields, in combination with energy savings and carbon sequestration by land use and sustainable farming.

Politically, you are correct. Your approach is balanced and admirable. Perhaps it may have even worked, had we begun decades earlier.

I find Charles Stross' thought experiment convincing. He considers a scenario in which the human race disappears without otherwise affecting the planetary eco-system:

"Nuclear reactors scram automatically, grids shut down, there are various nasty industrial accidents from unattended plant, and then the atmospheric carbon pulse continues and is joined by large-scale outgassing from the Siberian tundra and possibly a crash in hard-shelled ocean dwelling species due to acidification. Global mean temperatures rise by roughly 4 degrees celsius (hey, we're not pumping any more CO2 out!) leading to considerably worse weather events and various ecosystem changes: the ongoing mass extinction event continues to coast on momentum during this period as more specialized species fail to find new niches."

So, no, even eco-fascism will not 'work' (will not avert a near-term crash).

More than 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Doesn't seem to have hurt us.

There are two factors at work here: the magnitude of change, and the rate of change. You naively address only the magnitude question, when in truth it is the rate of change that has everything to do with a civilization's survival

Then let me be the first: there is no necessity to do anything about CO2 emissions.

There is no political necessity, of course. But politics is not the substrate of the physical world - the reverse is true. Physical reality will adjust the parameters of human existence in due course. Neither your blitheness nor Atlantis' alarm can affect the outcome in the slightest.

This is not fatalism. In dealing with large-scale physical forces (as well as with political or technological ones) there is a limited window of opportunity to effect meaningful change. Unfortunately, we have missed the window in this case.

Of course, we have an obligation to do what we can, and hope for the best.

The current situation of human technological society is analogous to that of Air France Fight 4590:

"...During the Concorde's takeoff run, it ran over this piece of debris, cutting a tyre and sending a large chunk of tyre debris (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 pounds) into the underside of the aircraft's wing at an estimated speed of 140 metres per second (310 mph).[BEA 8] Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the undercarriage. Leaking fuel gushing out from the bottom of the wing was most likely ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with hot parts of the engine.[BEA 9] Engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but engine one slowly recovered over the next few seconds.[BEA 10] A large plume of flame developed; the flight engineer then shut down engine two in response to a fire warning and the captain's command.[BEA 11] Air traffic controller Gilles Logelin noticed the flames before the Concorde was airborne, however with only 2 km (1.2 mi) of runway remaining and travelling at a speed of 328 km/h (204 mph), its only option was to take off. The Concorde would have needed at least 3 km (1.9 mi) of runway to abort safely.[citation needed]

Having passed V1 speed, the crew continued the takeoff, but the plane did not gain enough airspeed with the three remaining engines,[citation needed] because damage to the landing gear bay door prevented the retraction of the undercarriage.[BEA 12] The aircraft was unable to climb or accelerate, maintaining a speed of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) at an altitude of 60 metres (200 ft). The fire caused damage to the port wing, which began to disintegrate—melted by the extremely high temperatures. Engine number one surged again, but this time failed to recover. Due to the asymmetric thrust, the starboard wing lifted, banking the aircraft to over 100 degrees. The crew reduced the power on engines three and four in an attempt to level the aircraft, but with falling airspeed they lost control and the aircraft stalled, crashing into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel near the airport.[1][8][9][10]

The crew was trying to divert to nearby Le Bourget Airport, but accident investigators stated that a safe landing, given the aircraft's flight path, would have been highly unlikely.

As the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript recorded it,[11] the last intelligible words in the cockpit (translated into English) were:

Co-pilot: "Le Bourget, Le Bourget, Le Bourget."
Pilot: "Too late (unclear)..."

Too late, too late.

[Suntzu]

AIDS will keep the population in check in Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Truth To Power]

Yes. Human beings are part of the natural world. Climate change is not supernatural; therefore it is natural.

Equivocation fallacy. By definition, "natural" is not "artificial."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19798.html

"...This result suggests that stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius (range 3 to 7 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval)..."

That is just nonsense with no basis in empirical fact. Such absurd CO2 sensitivity implies that the earth long ago boiled or froze.

The 'necessity to take action' is not necessarily dependent on human politics. A crash in human population, for instance, would be a far more likely mediation than planned global carbon controls.

True. Many events could cause a large reduction in CO2 emissions. Global carbon controls are unlikely to be one of them.

In any event, long-term climate change is already baked in. Barring large scale (and dangerously unpredictable geo-engineering), it will not be physically possible to avert an eventual 20 def F rise.

Absurd nonsense with no basis in fact.

We can predict the climate cycles on the long term.

No we can't.

We cant predict the weather as its bound by small fluctuations. Weather and climate are too entirely different things.

No they aren't.

But in overall, even with the weather, we can predict that weather will be far more extreme with time to come.

No we can't.

That means that the results of the researches showed these results. They didn't made it all up.

The "research" was designed to show those results, like Mann's hockey stick, which his methodology produced from red noise.

Now, what do you propose to do about the i-Kiribati?

Nothing. If people are living on land that is sinking, they'd better move.

[anasawad]

Yes we can do all of those. You're already using the internet, do a little effort and read.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power,

So, when you claim that there are ways of dealing with the negative impacts, you were not saying that there are solutions for all the negative impacts. Got it.

[quetzalcoatl]

That is just nonsense with no basis in empirical fact. Such absurd CO2 sensitivity implies that the earth long ago boiled or froze.

The basis of your arguments is the idea that politics is the substrate of the physical world, rather than the reverse. Empirical arguments have no relevance to your point of view.

We are not talking about boiling, unless you are arguing that the current estimate of sensitivity implies that a runaway greenhouse effect should have occurred in the past. Are you in fact making this argument?

A consideration of the PETM gives a more realistic assessment of sensitivity based on the geological record:

"The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred around 56 million years ago, is the most recent event that we can compare today's warming to. Global temperatures rose at least 5°C (9°F), and the PETM warmth lasted 200,000 years before the Earth system was able to remove the extra CO2 from the atmosphere."

------

Don't look for any quick turnarounds, based on carbon control regimes. They are now quite useless.

------

"A truly colossal amount of CO2 must have found its way into the atmosphere to create the observed fall in carbon-13 isotopes (called a negative carbon isotope excursion, or CIE, in the literature). Since the initial discovery, the CIE has been found in paleo records from around the world...

The PETM pulse of CO2 has been linked with acidification of the deep ocean and the extinction of tiny marine life called forams (foraminifera), and proved to be a difficult time for coral reefs. It was also a time of rapid change in land plants and animals, with a quick turnover of species and large migrations, although extinctions were limited."

It is irrelevant what the qctual source of the PETM CO2 pulse was. Likely volcanic activity, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the amount of CO2 added and the rate of increase. We have already exceeded PETM both in absolute concentration of CO2 and rate of increase.

"The authors find that the maximum PETM rate of emission for organic carbon as the source is equivalent to 6.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, and for methane as the source, 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. For comparison: 2010 human-carbon emissions were 30.6 billion tonnes. So if organic carbon was the source, current emissions are almost 5 times faster than the PETM, and if methane, current emissions are rising 27 times faster."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-ris ... ction.html
https://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp

We are already well underway with the latest extinction event. Will it mean the end of the human race? Probably not. After all, the human species weathered an ice age. (Although it is well to remember that it came very close. DNA studies have indicated a bottleneck which reduced the human population to around 1000 individuals.)

What it does mean is the end of technological civilization (at least on the current scale that we now have in parts of Europe, North America, and Asia).

[Atlantis]

Politically, you are correct. Your approach is balanced and admirable. Perhaps it may have even worked, had we begun decades earlier.

You cannot know that it is too late. All your projections are based on hypothesis. I don't even want to know what hypothesis because there are other projections that claim all is fine and dandy.

You cannot know either what effect the workable measures I propose have. Therefore, your claim that it "is too late" is purely arbitrary and probably due to a love for doomsday fantasies. In other words, you are the identical twin brother of the climate change denier who for some reason or other wants to prevent sensible measures to be taken.

In the political struggle for the fight against climate change, you and the deniers are on the same side. I don't even want to speculate about what makes you take such a non-productive and futile course.

The effect of the measures I propose depend entirely on the degree they are implemented. For example, I can use my land to grow vegetables by sustainable methods without external inputs and permanent soil cover instead of chemical farming with bare soil.

Do you know how much carbon is sequestered (taken out off the atmosphere) if I increase my Soil Organic Matter (SOM, also called humus) from 1% to 12%? I have known extremely fertile soil with up to 30% SOM. I don't remember the figures, but I think most CO2 could be taken out of the atmosphere if a sufficiently percentage of farmland could be converted to sustainable farming.

Do you know how many emissions I save if I use the natural fertility of the sequestered CO2 (ie., humus) instead of synthetic fertilizers?

Do you know how many emissions I avoid if I use permanent soil cover with cover crops etc. instead of bare soil cultivation in conventional farming?

Do you know how many emissions I avoid if I use no-till or conservation tillage instead of the regular deep tillage by moldboard plow which causes humus/fertility from deep soil layers to be emitted into the atmosphere?

Do you know how many emissions I avoid by saving fuel because I don't need to plow so much?

Do you know how many emissions we can save by eating local food instead of jetting bulk food stuff around the globe?

No, Quetzal, you do not know any of this. You cannot know any of this because it depends on what scale and to what degree these measures are implemented.

Is it difficult to implement them? No, it isn't! It just needs consumer awareness to buy sustainable and a policy shift to subsidize sustainable instead of conventional mono culture.

But you are not interested in creating that awareness because you are in love with your doomsday fantasies.

Moreover, you cannot know what effect innovation, for example in green technology, etc., will have either, because of the simple reason that you don't know what will be invented tomorrow.

[quetzalcoatl]

You cannot know that it is too late. All your projections are based on hypothesis. I don't even want to know what hypothesis because there are other projections that claim all is fine and dandy.

You cannot know either what effect the workable measures I propose have. Therefore, your claim that it "is too late" is purely arbitrary and probably due to a love for doomsday fantasies. In other words, you are the identical twin brother of the climate change denier who for some reason or other wants to prevent sensible measures to be taken.

Not all hypotheses are equal. It is true that we don't have enough information to conclusively endorse any hypothesis, but the weight of evidence makes some more likely than others. And we do have enough evidence to reject TtP's hypotheses.

It is a fact, not a hypothesis, that the current CO2 concentration, as well as the rate of increase, exceeds that of the PETM extinction event. In my opinion, the evidence suggests that the IPCC's projections have been flawed by an excessive degree of conservatism (inspired by internal political opposition). The weight of evidence suggests to me that climate change effects will be more extreme, and will occur more quickly, than these 'official' projections.

That being said, it is minimally prudent to practice the measures you have been suggesting...even if they only end up helping our distant descendants. Personally, I prefer to know the truth. I don't want to be the passenger on the Concorde (just before V1) thinking all is well while flames shoot from the engines.

[Truth To Power]

It will be a combination of the effects of global warming, environmental damage, overpopulation, overconsumption, and a resource crunch:

"Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

No, that report is just stupid garbage. STUPID GARBAGE. Just as one example, the graph shows food production has clearly diverged from the Club of Rome's false and stupid prediction, meaning all the rest is also false and stupid. The Limits to Growth was always stupid, antiscientific garbage, and always will be.

The basis of your arguments is the idea that politics is the substrate of the physical world, rather than the reverse. Empirical arguments have no relevance to your point of view.

No, that's just false and stupid garbage from you, with no basis in fact or logic. If you are going to take issue with something I've said, at least quote me directly, verbatim, and in-context, so that readers will know you aren't just makin' $#!+ up. You will notice, I hope, that unlike certain despicably dishonest PF members who chop context to alter meaning, or do not quote directly at all, I always quote the post I am disproving directly, verbatim, and in context.

We are not talking about boiling, unless you are arguing that the current estimate of sensitivity implies that a runaway greenhouse effect should have occurred in the past. Are you in fact making this argument?

Yes.

A consideration of the PETM gives a more realistic assessment of sensitivity based on the geological record:

Garbage. The PETM happened over 50Mya, and we have no way of knowing exactly what happened, or exactly when, that far back in prehistory. Reconstructions are just that. They are not direct observations.

"The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred around 56 million years ago, is the most recent event that we can compare today's warming to.

No, that's just false and stupid garbage from your moronic source. There are about half a dozen temporary sun-caused warming events that are far more recent and more comparable to recent warming than the PETM, which was a totally different event.

Global temperatures rose at least 5°C (9°F), and the PETM warmth lasted 200,000 years before the Earth system was able to remove the extra CO2 from the atmosphere."

So, about three times as much warming, over a period three orders of magnitude longer. I.e., not comparable in any way.

"A truly colossal amount of CO2 must have found its way into the atmosphere to create the observed fall in carbon-13 isotopes (called a negative carbon isotope excursion, or CIE, in the literature). Since the initial discovery, the CIE has been found in paleo records from around the world...

The PETM pulse of CO2 has been linked with acidification of the deep ocean and the extinction of tiny marine life called forams (foraminifera), and proved to be a difficult time for coral reefs. It was also a time of rapid change in land plants and animals, with a quick turnover of species and large migrations, although extinctions were limited."

So, not comparable to recent climate changes.

It is irrelevant what the qctual source of the PETM CO2 pulse was. Likely volcanic activity, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the amount of CO2 added and the rate of increase. We have already exceeded PETM both in absolute concentration of CO2 and rate of increase.

No we haven't. Don't be absurd.

"The authors find that the maximum PETM rate of emission for organic carbon as the source is equivalent to 6.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, and for methane as the source, 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. For comparison: 2010 human-carbon emissions were 30.6 billion tonnes. So if organic carbon was the source, current emissions are almost 5 times faster than the PETM, and if methane, current emissions are rising 27 times faster."

But where is the comparison of actual atmospheric CO2 level reached, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html
https://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp

More warmist garbage

We are already well underway with the latest extinction event.

Caused mainly by human predation and ecosystem breaches by human transportation systems, not CO2.
Will it mean the end of the human race? Probably not. After all, the human species weathered an ice age. (Although it is well to remember that it came very close. DNA studies have indicated a bottleneck which reduced the human population to around 1000 individuals.)

Probably caused by the Lake Toba volcanic event.

What it does mean is the end of technological civilization (at least on the current scale that we now have in parts of Europe, North America, and Asia).

No, that's just silly garbage from you with no basis in fact.

Not all hypotheses are equal.

Ain't that the truth!

And we do have enough evidence to reject TtP's hypotheses.

No, the weight of evidence favors my hypotheses.

It is a fact, not a hypothesis, that the current CO2 concentration, as well as the rate of increase, exceeds that of the PETM extinction event.

No it isn't.

In my opinion, the evidence suggests that the IPCC's projections have been flawed by an excessive degree of conservatism (inspired by internal political opposition). The weight of evidence suggests to me that climate change effects will be more extreme, and will occur more quickly, than these 'official' projections.

That must be why no actual effect beyond natural variability is yet noticeable....

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power,

So, when you claim that there are ways of dealing with the negative impacts, you were not saying that there are solutions for all the negative impacts. Got it.

Depends on what you mean by, "solutions." If you want reversals, then no, there are not reversals for all the negative impacts.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, apparently you have no solution at all for the i-Kiribati.

What about increased immigration from Africa to Europe?