[Pants-of-dog]

If we define dangerous levels of CO2 as any level that has a direct and measurable effect on the environment that can be shown to cause harm to humans, we are at that level.

We know this because people are currently dying because of climate change.

[late]

@late according to who?

Science, cut the crap.

[Steve_American]

@Steve_American I am not a denier, and nothing I said could convince anyone of that false premise.

I can absolutely guarantee you thatb humanity will not be extinct by 2026, and you'd be an complete fool to bet against me.

There are NO predictions of 3C increase in the next 3 years, and you KNOW it! It's BS and hyperbole.

CO2 levels are NOT high. They have been far higher in the past. The last time CO2 levels were this high was 3 million year, but we have no idea if this is a natural progression or if humans are speeding it up. The science is not definitive. That we have an effect is true, but to what degree?

Methane.. BS. (get it?) We've had higher concentrations before. Most of this is unscientific bullshit.

Godstud, you are not a good faith debater.

I said that it isn't the level of CO2 directly that matters. You went back to that claim after that to late.
What matters is the temp that the level of CO2 causes.

Also, methane is very dangerous as a gas that traps heat like CO2. But it is 100 times worse than CO2 during the 1st week after it is released, but it pretty fast (over 20 years or so gets converted to CO2 and H2O).

Another thing that matters is the rate at which the temp increases. Currently it is over 1000 times faster than at any time in deep time except the very short temp increase from when a 6 mile rock killed the dinosaurs. This time the temp was increased by the energy of the collision that got converted to heat and red-hot rocks falling back to earth. The CO2 level changed very little, AFAIK. So, the temp cooled off in years or at most decades. But, the temp did reach extreme levels for a few days.
All other cases of huge climate changes took hundreds of thousands of years, not 100 years.

When do you think methane levels were far higher than they are now?
Maybe methane levels were far higher 4 billion years ago, before there was complex life. Are you really saying that a high methane level back then proves that a similar level now would be no problem?
If so, you are not worth my time.

[Steve_American]

Historic Heat - Passing the Threshold [of plus 1.5 deg. C], Climate Emergency Forum

At the 6 min mark he explains that in June 1023 the whole world heated 0.18 deg. C compared to June of 2922. Remember that not so long ago the number for a decade was 0.18 deg C. So, instead of the world heating by 0.18 deg. C over 10 tears, it only took 1 year. Now, this is just for June. It may not be so bad, or it may get worse.

I predicted that things would happen very fast, and here we are seeing that exact thing happening now.

.

[Godstud]

Godstud, you are not a good faith debater.

Keep telling yourself that. Make excuses to leave the debate.

What matters is the temp that the level of CO2 causes.

They do not know what levels cause WHAT. It is models and conjecture. They can only track accurately what is happening NOW, and then hope that this doesn't pass in a few decades, like what happened with the zone layer.

Also, methane is very dangerous as a gas that traps heat like CO2. But it is 100 times worse than CO2 during the 1st week after it is released, but it pretty fast (over 20 years or so gets converted to CO2 and H2O).

OK. So how is this relevant? So you're saying methane is NOT a threat, if this is the case.

Another thing that matters is the rate at which the temp increases. Currently it is over 1000 times faster than at any time in deep time except the very short temp increase from when a 6 mile rock killed the dinosaurs. This time the temp was increased by the energy of the collision that got converted to heat and red-hot rocks falling back to earth. The CO2 level changed very little, AFAIK. So, the temp cooled off in years or at most decades. But, the temp did reach extreme levels for a few days.
All other cases of huge climate changes took hundreds of thousands of years, not 100 years.

We do not know how fast past temperatures have risen and fallen. To know that we would need accurate records over history, and we don't. That's reality and fact.

When do you think methane levels were far higher than they are now?

When? Give me a source and show me the science.

Maybe methane levels were far higher 4 billion years ago, before there was complex life. Are you really saying that a high methane level back then proves that a similar level now would be no problem?
If so, you are not worth my time.

We do not know how fast things changed in the past. Climate science is a new science and we learn new things every day. This happens with science, all the time.

If you choose to leave the discussion, then take the L and go. I can't stop you from fleeing the conversation because you dislike me not blindly agreeing with everything you say.

[late]

Climate science is a new science and we learn new things every day.

It's not new, and the warming has not faced a seriously challenge, and it's been almost half a century. In the meantime, climate science reached consensus, with the rest of science throwing it's support behind them a few years later.

You are full of crap.

[Godstud]

Yes, there is a consensus on the existence of global warming. I am not disputing that, nor have I ever disputed that.

There is not a consensus on how fast it is occurring and how to fix the problems. There is not a consensus on a great deal of the details regarding this, @late , so YOU are the one who is full of crap.

Note: Consensus is a bunch of scientists agreeing on holding an opinion based on the available science. It does not mean it is infallible or absolute. A healthy dose of skepticism should always be employed when dealing with any science, especially when it is so politically charged, as climate change is.

[Rich]

So I'm a bit confused by this thread. Its titled best President for the Eco-Apocalypse. So I presumed it was going to be about who would be the best president for the number one green house gas emitter. Yet China is not even mentioned, Its all about America.

[Robert Urbanek]

So I'm a bit confused by this thread. Its titled best President for the Eco-Apocalypse. So I presumed it was going to be about who would be the best president for the number one green house gas emitter. Yet China is not even mentioned, Its all about America.

The question is about who should be President of the United States and who is best equipped to deal with the worsening situation in this country. Regardless of what China is doing, we will need a President in this country who is prepared to deal with dire conditions in this nation, regardless of the global status of gas emissions.

These conditions may include population relocation if certain parts of the country become difficult to live in, further strains on the supply chain which may result in price gouging, and the potential breakdown of law and order, which may require martial law.

[Steve_American]

Steve_American wrote:
Godstud, you are not a good faith debater.

1] Keep telling yourself that. Make excuses to leave the debate.

2] They do not know what levels cause WHAT. It is models and conjecture. They can only track accurately what is happening NOW, and then hope that this doesn't pass in a few decades, like what happened with the zone layer.

3] OK. So how is this relevant? So you're saying methane is NOT a threat, if this is the case.

4] We do not know how fast past temperatures have risen and fallen. To know that we would need accurate records over history, and we don't. That's reality and fact.

5] When? Give me a source and show me the science.

6] We do not know how fast things changed in the past. Climate science is a new science and we learn new things every day. This happens with science, all the time.

7] If you choose to leave the discussion, then take the L and go. I can't stop you from fleeing the conversation because you dislike me not blindly agreeing with everything you say.

1] Godstud, you are not a good faith debater. Lurkers, see below for evidence.

2] Scientists disagree. They think they have good proxies, and claim to have tested them by comparing our climate models using the real CO2 levels going forward from when they were published, and the models are close to what happened after they were published.
If you had dug into this subject as you claimed, you should have learned this.

3] Methane is relevant because there is a lot of it out gassing, and a lot (over 100 times more than is in the air now) in the ground and on sea floor. We care mostly about the next 40 years, because the doomers all agree we will be extinct in much less time than that. Most of the methane outgassing now will still be in the air after 40 years. It is far worse than CO2 in the short run.
If you had dug into this subject as you claimed, you should have learned this.

4] Scientists have proxies for temp. They have tested them. They have faith in them. You claim to trust scientists, why don't you trust them on this?
If you had dug into this subject as you claimed, you should have learned this.

5] You were the one who asserted that "methane was far higher in the past." I asked you when you thought that was true. You are now asking me to answer for you.
This makes you a bad faith debater.

6] Scientists have proxies for temps. They claim to know that, for example, the Siberian Traps took about a million years to be formed IIRC, maybe 2 million. They are blamed for the worst mass extinction ever, at the end of the Permian. [It takes a long time to flood 1000 sq, miles with a 1 km deep layer of lava. And the traps are bigger and deeper than that.]
If you had dug into this subject as you claimed, you should have learned this.

7] If you keep up the behavior, I pointed out above, there is no use debating with you. We'll see.
You claimed to have dug deep into climate change, yet you didn't learn key facts. I claim that you were led away from the key facts by the algorithmics used by Google and YouTube, or maybe you lied.
__________________________._____________________________________

My last post above with the link to a video, contains evidence at the 6 min. mark that, it is possible that the whole world is now heating 10 times faster than it was just a year ago. This may be because of the methane that is out gassing in the Arctic and the El Nino.
Also, the oceans are having a temp spike, and it takes a lot of energy to heat water.
.

[Rich]

Lets try and summarise. A lot of the liberals say things are really, really bad. That we need to take drastic action to reduce green house gasses, that we need to reduce world emissions by well over 50% in the very near future,

If they're right then China must be stopped. China is building 2 coal powered stations a week. China is way worse than the Germans. If the doomsters are, correct then a nuclear war with China is clearly the lesser evil. If the doomsters are correct, then a nuclear war would actually maximises the number of humans that will survive.

On the domestic front, perhaps the biggest driver of green house emissions is the pharmaceutical sickness industrial complex. If the doomsters are correct then we just can not afford the luxury of the green house emmission of keeping very sick people alive. The Lockdown mentality is the very opposite of the way we need to be thinking. A cull that is concentrated amongst the most, obese, the sickest and oldest parts of our population should have been welcomed.

[late]

Yes, there is a consensus on the existence of global warming. I am not disputing that, nor have I ever disputed that.

There is not a consensus on how fast it is occurring and how to fix the problems. There is not a consensus on a great deal of the details regarding this, @late , so YOU are the one who is full of crap.

Note: Consensus is a bunch of scientists agreeing on holding an opinion based on the available science. It does not mean it is infallible or absolute. A healthy dose of skepticism should always be employed when dealing with any science, especially when it is so politically charged, as climate change is.

Science is never infallible, but it's still the best tool humanity has.

One of the problems is you. You keep spouting Big Oil propaganda..

Another problem is corruption, in this case, the Curse of Oil. Big Oil has far too much political power. Europe got high gas taxes in the 1970s, we have yet to do it.

Behind many, perhaps most, of our problems is income inequality. One of the reasons the rich have most of the power is that they have most of the money, far more than their fair share, and far more than they have had except in the South during slavery. Which is not a coincidence.

[Godstud]

One of the problems is you. You keep spouting Big Oil propaganda..

Facts are not propaganda. I have not argued , at an time, about ACC not being factual. You are just another activist who thinks that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you, is the enemy. This is why the USA has a huge problem in politics. It's this kind of thinking in absolutes that kills discussion and compromise.

Another problem is corruption, in this case, the Curse of Oil. Big Oil has far too much political power. Europe got high gas taxes in the 1970s, we have yet to do it.

Big oil is supporting protesters of "Big Oil". Canada already HAS high gas taxes. It hasn't stopped people from driving, and it certainly doesn't assist in the prices of food and commodities that require transport. Carbon taxes have seen the rise in food prices to pay for them. The government wins(more money) but the consumers lose.

Behind many, perhaps most, of our problems is income inequality. One of the reasons the rich have most of the power is that they have most of the money, far more than their fair share, and far more than they have had except in the South during slavery. Which is not a coincidence.

What is fair, to you? Communism, where we are ALL poor?

Capitalism works, but it needs checks and balances.

Slavery? You can't go straight to slavery. You have to mention Nazis, first.

If they're right then China must be stopped. China is building 2 coal powered stations a week. China is way worse than the Germans. If the doomsters are, correct then a nuclear war with China is clearly the lesser evil. If the doomsters are correct, then a nuclear war would actually maximises the number of humans that will survive.

China is also building the first Thorium reactors(greener that most of the crap the West is doing) and you can't invade people who aren't GREEN, just to push your views on them. That'd be as bad if they did it to you.

World’s first commercial thorium reactor approved in China
https://www.globalconstructionreview.co ... %20cooling.

Of course, cooperation to combat affecting all humans isn't possible. Is it?

[late]

Slavery? You can't go straight to slavery.

The underlying problem is that between what you don't know, and what you don't understand; there is a void.

The Koch brothers gave Reagan tons of money, in return they got much of what they wanted. Their end goal is to bring back slavery in everything but the name.

I didn't go "straight to slavery".

They did.

[Godstud]

Pretending there is no intervening years between slavery in the USA, and the modern day, is the VOID that you speak of.

What slavery? Modern wage slavery? Please.... Hyperbole.

The Koch brothers gave Reagan tons of money, in return they got much of what they wanted. Their end goal is to bring back slavery in everything but the name.

We're discussing climate change and not "Slavery" which is not why Koch gave their money to Reagan and every other President since then. They do it so they can keep it all "business as usual". Blame crony Capitalism, if you want, but there's an agenda there, and it's got to do with $$$$ and nothing else.

Much of the Carbon taxes and such are just the flip side of the same coin. The government shaking down people for more $$$$. They are just doing it in a way that virtue signals.

[Rich]

China is also building the first Thorium reactors(greener that most of the crap the West is doing) and you can't invade people who aren't GREEN, just to push your views on them. That'd be as bad if they did it to you.

I don't know exactly what the extreme or radical doomsters are predicting, but if we're talking about scenarios where 90, 99 or even 99.9 percentage of the human population are going to be eliminated then every day morality is going to out the window. It will be about creating facts on the ground. The survivors can debate the morality of the action later.
.

Of course, cooperation to combat affecting all humans isn't possible. Is it?

If the doomsters are correct then its too late for that.

[Godstud]

@Rich That's why we can't accept the doomsday and eco-apocalypse activists. if we do that, then we might as well just go nuts and burn it all to the ground, despite the reality showing that nothing is set in stone, and there is no "tipping point" that is anything more than hyperbole designed to inject panic amongst the uneducated.

[late]

1) Pretending there are no intervening years between slavery in the USA, and the modern day, is the VOID that you speak of.

2) What slavery?

3) We're discussing climate change and not "Slavery"

4) Much of the Carbon taxes and such are just the flip side of the same coin. The government shaking down people for more $$$$.

1) Your void is much worse than I thought. The Koch brothers planned on sucking up all the money and power they could steal. Which would have the effect of reducing the income and status of most Americans, as much as they could. The goal was to bring back something close to slavery.

2) They employed a variety of tactics, union busting, sophisticated propaganda, buying politicians, tax cuts for the rich, and making it easy for the rich to cheat on their taxes.

3) The damage of income inequality influences most issues.

4) You say you're not a Denier, but that's pure Koch propaganda. It's bizarre, truly, that at this point someone sane is arguing against fighting climate change. Which is what you are doing. Carbon taxes are the conservative approach to tackling climate change. They were developed by conservative economists...

The group of rich guys Koch heads has a troll army. When I run into someone as absurd as you, I wonder if you are compensated for your effort, or if you're just damaged.

[Steve_American]

@Rich That's why we can't accept the doomsday and eco-apocalypse activists. if we do that, then we might as well just go nuts and burn it all to the ground, despite the reality showing that nothing is set in stone, and there is no "tipping point" that is anything more than hyperbole designed to inject panic amongst the uneducated.

Here is where your denial really shines through.

Of course, there are tipping points.
The IPCC has agreed that they are there.
The IPCC can't deal with them because there is no scientific way to know just exactly where they are. At what temp each one is tipped.
. . . So, the IPCC just ignores them, except to say that we need to stay below a plus 1.5 deg. C increase.

BEW-- I never called for a carbon tax. They are stupid because, as you pointed out, they don't get the job done fast enough. Over time the corps would find a way to not use as much carbon fuels. We just already used up all our time.

This is why I go further, and demand strict rationing. We can ease up a little later if we go too far. Going not far enough must be avoided at all costs, because we are already at a plus 1.2 deg. C increase, and the El Nino will make things very hot for the next 2 or more years.

[Godstud]

The IPCC that you, or someone else, said was so politicized? That IPCC?

I am not a radical, or an activist, so I that makes me a "Denier". Got it.


He's a VERY interesting article on this subject of tipping points. It's not anti-ACC. It does, however, demonstrate how I think about this. Maybe it will help you understand a bit more about this.

There Is No Climate Tipping Point
How the “tipping points” metaphor infiltrated environmental discussions—and how it set us back

All of this illustrates how the current understanding of climate tipping elements remains uncertain. Climate skeptics might seize upon such uncertainty to question climate change itself. But make no mistake—the uncertainty of tipping elements revolves around the degree of future impacts. That climate change is affecting these systems is not remotely in question. At the same time, our projections for future climate are unmistakably less certain than we might like. The best scientific efforts and latest research typically yield a range of potential answers—zones of risk within which critical thresholds may lie.

Given such grim ambiguity, media headlines often seize on the worst-case, high-end impacts as the likeliest outcome. For instance, science headlines have popularly termed greenhouse gases released from thawed Arctic soils as a “carbon bomb,” even as permafrost experts wearily stress that overall carbon release will be gradual. Writers and reporters have likewise described the threat of seafloor methane bubbling out of the oceans as a “bomb” or “gun,” selectively invoking a diminishing number of studies advancing an increasingly discredited hypothesis of abrupt and dangerous ocean methane release.

This state of affairs, at its root, may not be anybody’s fault. Even low-stakes science communication is rife with difficulties, as the pervasive myth that humans only use 10% of their brains attests. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has vividly illustrated the limits to public understanding and acceptance of messaging from researchers and experts. Add in the long-running game of telephone between earth scientists, the media, and the general public—along with changing scientific understandings—and misconceptions are hardly surprising.

In fact, they are not irrevocably bad. The consequences of climate change are still within the power of human beings to mitigate, nor will humans ever be powerless to reduce or cushion the impacts of a warmer world through adaptation. The research literature shows that even middle-of-the-road climate mitigation pathways can dramatically reduce the rate and extent of permafrost thaw and limit the long-term loss of ice sheets. Limiting end-of-century warming to 2-3°C will essentially eliminate any risk of significant climate feedbacks from seafloor-frozen methane hydrates. And a combination of budding progress toward decarbonization and more recent climate research has already greatly reduced the likelihood of the worst-case future climate scenarios.

Certainly, this is no reason for complacency. The sensitivity of some systems like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation—a major global ocean circulation pattern—to low or moderate long-term warming remains uncertain. And shallow tropical coral reef ecosystems may suffer grievous biodiversity loss under even 1.5°C of warming. Besides, parts of the Amazon rainforest are already severely threatened by further warming and deforestation.

Yet climate conversations persistently characterize the present day as a do-or-die, tip-or-not moment, with perfect climate action or annihilation as the only two possible outcomes. In opening the 2019 UN climate summit in Madrid, UN Secretary-General António Guterres ominously warned: “The point of no return is no longer over the horizon. It is in sight and hurtling toward us.” In July of last year, Guterres declared: “We have a choice. Collective action or collective suicide.” Such a framing contributes to a growing air of nihilism and defeatism.

For environmental activists, climate tipping points are certainly useful for advocacy. Journalists, coordinators, and my younger aspiring novelist self yearn for narratives that can advance a cause, as opposed to endless qualifications, hypotheticals, and uncertainties. Politicians have their own fondness for Hollywood-esque melodrama at the speaking podium. The idea that a hubristic humankind might blunder pridefully across a point of no return only to find itself committed to damnation carries powerful romantic appeal, second only to the distinction of standing on the right side of history as it all unfolds. To a crusader, the pending end of humanity is a thrilling call to action.

But no matter the age or the cause, crusaders have always represented just a sliver of society at large. An ordinary person looks at the immensely difficult slope of climate action that activists demand and reasonably concludes that it will be impossible to reduce emissions as quickly as many advocates and scientists seem to say is necessary. Having established their powerlessness in the face of humanity’s future fate, they resign themselves to uneasily continuing their normal lives. This false sense of futility is undoubtedly detrimental to climate efforts, and a more nuanced understanding of climate tipping elements could help combat such hopelessness.

Beyond defeatism, tipping point anxiety may inhibit precisely the kind of sustained, long-term work needed for decarbonization by focusing all attention on immediately actionable solutions and policies.

As I now see it today, the fight against climate change will be a long-term, multi-generational struggle without any such cathartic moment of clarity. It will involve efforts not just to build solar farms and nuclear reactors but also to deploy affordable cooling systems in apartments across Lagos and Bangalore and distribute drought-resistant crop varieties in Ethiopia and Afghanistan. Humans will continuously dictate and revise Earth’s climate conditions, and humans must continuously strive to build a more free, just, and sustainable present and future within those conditions.
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/cli ... point-real

Nothing I have said contradicts this.