[Robert Urbanek]

Given the flooding in Vermont, soaring temperatures in the West and Southwest, and the prospect of more climate chaos, who is best qualified to lead us through the extreme difficulties we may face by January 2025? Certainly not a climate change denier. But can we trust an ongoing crisis to the aging Biden who still applauds the “great American road trip” and thinks technology will solve all our climate challenges?

Extreme changes in the environment may require extreme and immediate responses. Can we really afford to have a President who glibly asserts American has a great future when everything suggests the opposite? Is there any candidate for President who will tell Americans they need to prepare for very difficult times ahead?

[Steve_American]

IMHO, we are screwed.
What we need are massive changes. A state of emergency to begin a radical series of changes.
However, nominating such a candidate would likely result in Trump winning reelection.
The American people are just not ready for that.
So, we can't do that.
Unless there is a mass movement like a non-violent copy of what the French people are doing.
I see no sign of that happening, because the American people are not ready for that, yet.
So, another 4 year presidential term will pass with little being done.
The Earth is not waiting until we get our act together, so by the time we do, it will be far too late.
We are screwed.
1st millions will die.
Then a billion will die.
Next many billions will die.
I just hope some small part of surface life survives so life can start over.
This can't happen if the oceans are boiled off and bled off to space.
We are screwed.
China and Russia are nuclear powers so we can't make them deal with ACC. They seem to be choosing to do little or nothing. They're both starting or thinking about starting a war.
We are screwed.

[Potemkin]

We are screwed.
1st millions will die.
Then a billion will die.
Next many billions will die.
I just hope some small part of surface life survives so life can start over.
This can't happen if the oceans are boiled off and bled off to space.
We are screwed.

Don’t worry, @Steve_American - by the time the first billion people have died, human industrial civilisation will have completely collapsed, which will remove the source of anthropogenic global warming, thus solving the problem. This will happen long before the oceans ‘boil off’ and ‘bleed into space’.

This sort of scientifically ignorant hysteria is not helpful. It just encourages climate change deniers to dismiss the entire thing as hysterical nonsense, when in fact there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed. It’s just not as serious as you’re making it out to be. A runaway greenhouse effect which would turn Earth into Venus is simply not possible - human activity is simply not significant enough to even come close to doing this. There’s nothing we can do to the Earth which it cannot recover from. The Earth has seen off bigger bastards than we are, and has come through unscathed. No, the real threat of anthropogenic global warming is not to the Earth itself, which has survived far worse, but to the continuation of our own industrial civilisation. There could be a population crash, followed by a reversion to medieval social and economic conditions. This is generally undesirable, so we need to do something to avoid it.

[wat0n]

What do you mean by "crash" here?

World population is expected to peak around 2085, only through natural fertility and mortality.

[Steve_American]

What do you mean by "crash" here?

World population is expected to peak around 2085, only through natural fertility and mortality.

the experts who make those projections are choosing to ignore the effects of ACC.

because he and I see that the effects of ACC aka global warming as being terrible and coming very fast now, those other experts are going to be wildly wrong.
.

[Godstud]

Eco-Apocalypse?

This is why Conservatives do not take progressives seriously. Massive hyperbole.

It's like the Carbon Dioxide lies, and the Carbon Taxes that really don't fix anything. They only monetize taking money from people in a different way and funneling it to the rich. There isn't even a consensus on what levels of CO2 are bad.

Note: CO2 levels could rise by 1% and it would only make growth peak for plants, and still not affect humans. They did testing in the 1960s on subs to find out what humans could survive and thrive in, regarding CO2. CO2 levels have been FAR higher in earth's past, due to volcanic activity, alone.

the experts who make those projections are choosing to ignore the effects of ACC.

No. ACC is not agreed upon by all scientists and a consensus is not evidence that it's absolute fact. It's just something that most scientists agree upon.

I am 100% for us creating less pollution and making the world a better place, but we have to be realistic about it. The "Sky is Falling" hyperbole is not helping anyone.

No one knows what will happen in 2085. Predictions were that we'd already be drowning by now, and we aren't. Scientists made predictions 5 years ago that they are now deleting and recanting.

[Steve_American]

Don’t worry, @Steve_American - by the time the first billion people have died, human industrial civilisation will have completely collapsed, which will remove the source of anthropogenic global warming, thus solving the problem. This will happen long before the oceans ‘boil off’ and ‘bleed into space’.

This sort of scientifically ignorant hysteria is not helpful. It just encourages climate change deniers to dismiss the entire thing as hysterical nonsense, when in fact there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed. It’s just not as serious as you’re making it out to be. A runaway greenhouse effect which would turn Earth into Venus is simply not possible - human activity is simply not significant enough to even come close to doing this. There’s nothing we can do to the Earth which it cannot recover from. The Earth has seen off bigger bastards than we are, and has come through unscathed. No, the real threat of anthropogenic global warming is not to the Earth itself, which has survived far worse, but to the continuation of our own industrial civilisation. There could be a population crash, followed by a reversion to medieval social and economic conditions. This is generally undesirable, so we need to do something to avoid it.

Well sir, you have not yey learned about 3 tippng ponts.
1] The permafrost and methane hydrate sub-sea deposits are or will very soon begin to out gas massive amounts of CO2 and methane=CH4. These will keep the heating going for aa long time. Partly this is because a pot of cool water on a hot stove takes a while to reach the equilibrium temp (and the equlibrium may be above to boiling point of the water). However, more and more CO2 and CH4 being added to the air will keep increasing the equlibrium temp.
2] When industrial processes stop, this will also stop the release of aerosols (tiny soot particles and SO2 particles), these are rising high into the air and reflect some sun light back to space before the reach the surface. This is cooling the temp. However, they will fall out of the air in about a week or less. This will heat the temp by about 1 deg. C in a week.
3] If we don't shut down our nuclear reactors, they will melt down when we have to stop keeping them being cooled (a power grid failure, for example). This will release radiation into the air, and this will strip off the ozone layer. This will let the UV light reacj the surface which will burn out skin in less than an hour of exposure. It will also heat the temp more.

I don't know how hot it will get, and no human will live to see the worst/highest temps. I think it is possible that, like Mars, the water will slowly be converted to O2 and H2 and the H2 is so ligh it will vent to space from the top of the air, over millions of years. The O2 may be cooked so it reacts with silicon to form SiO2-sand/quartz over millions of years.
.

[Steve_American]

Eco-Apocalypse?

This is why Conservatives do not take progressives seriously. Massive hyperbole.

It's like the Carbon Dioxide lies, and the Carbon Taxes that really don't fix anything. They only monetize taking money from people in a different way and funneling it to the rich. There isn't even a consensus on what levels of CO2 are bad.

Note: CO2 levels could rise by 1% and it would only make growth peak for plants, and still not affect humans. They did testing in the 1960s on subs to find out what humans could survive and thrive in, regarding CO2. CO2 levels have been FAR higher in earth's past, due to volcanic activity, alone.

No. ACC is not agreed upon by all scientists and a consensus is not evidence that it's absolute fact. It's just something that most scientists agree upon.

I am 100% for us creating less pollution and making the world a better place, but we have to be realistic about it. The "Sky is Falling" hyperbole is not helping anyone.

No one knows what will happen in 2085. Predictions were that we'd already be drowning by now, and we aren't. Scientists made predictions 5 years ago that they are now deleting and recanting.

It appeas that you are climate change denier.

OTOH, I know that I'm at the other extreme.
I just see that the IPCC is by design a very conservative organization, because its findings are edited by almost all Govs in the world. The Govs get the final say, and 1 Gov. is enough to see the change made. So, we need to read between thee lines a little.
In 2018 and 2018 in 2 reports the IPCC said that =>
. . a] We are now in the midst of "abrupt heating".
. . b] This heating is now "irreversible".

The word 'abrupt' there refers to the fact that the temp is increasing well over 1000 times faster than any heating in the deep past, except when a 6 miles rock killed the dinosaurs (this heating ended in a few days, though). The speed of the heating is, therefore, much faster than all/any life forms can genetically change to adapt.

IMHO, if we magically could build enough carbon capture "machines", then maybe we could reverse it. But, we don't yet have a good enough such machines to do it, and then we still need to make them and power them with solar energy.

Godstud, it is quite likely that you will live long enough to see that I'm right. I hope you do.
.

[Godstud]

No. I am not a climate change denier. That's an absolute false conclusion to draw from what I am saying. I am a skeptic when it comes to the gloom and doom predictions.

So, we need to read between thee lines a little.
In 2018 and 2018 in 2 reports the IPCC said that =>
. . a] We are now in the midst of "abrupt heating".
. . b] This heating is now "irreversible".

These change with every year that goes by. What was said in 2018 has been racanted.

IPCC is not infallible. They make mistakes and their climate change "models" have been wrong. Climate science is NEW. We really don't have any clue what happened more than 50,000 years ago, and most of it is conjecture.

IMHO, if we magically could build enough carbon capture "machines", then maybe we could reverse it.

Co2 levels are increasing at a rate of 2 parts per million, a year.

Fact: In the past we have had significantly higher CO2 levels than we do now.

But, we don't yet have a good enough such machines to do it, and then we still need to make them and power them with solar energy.

CO2 isn't the threat that SOME scientists make it out to be. Solar isn't the solution to everything, and is not possible on the vast utility levels that we need. It's also not 0 impact as they don't actually recycle most things associated with it. Nuclear(cleanest energy we have) can be, but that'll cost a lot of time and money.

A very good article with some good conclusions that address what I am saying.
Carbon dioxide: the good and the bad, the right and the wrong
https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/1 ... the-wrong/

It isn't black or white. There are vast gray areas in the climate change science, that are unknow, and can't simply say, "It's too late!", and throw in the towel. That's what you say when you say, "Eco-apocalypse".

[Steve_American]

No. I am not a climate change denier. That's an absolute false conclusion to draw from what I am saying. I am a skeptic when it comes to the gloom and doom predictions.

These change with every year that goes by. What was said in 2018 has been recanted.

IPCC is not infallible. They make mistakes and their climate change "models" have been wrong. Climate science is NEW. We really don't have any clue what happened more than 50,000 years ago, and most of it is conjecture.

Co2 levels are increasing at a rate of 2 parts per million, a year.

Fact: In the past we have had significantly higher CO2 levels than we do now.

CO2 isn't the threat that SOME scientists make it out to be. Solar isn't the solution to everything, and is not possible on the vast utility levels that we need. It's also not 0 impact as they don't actually recycle most things associated with it. Nuclear(cleanest energy we have) can be, but that'll cost a lot of time and money.

A very good article with some good conclusions that address what I am saying.
Carbon dioxide: the good and the bad, the right and the wrong
https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/1 ... the-wrong/

It isn't black or white. There are vast gray areas in the climate change science, that are unknow, and can't simply say, "It's too late!", and throw in the towel. That's what you say when you say, "Eco-apocalypse".

As I asserted, the IPCC is controlled in the end by Govs. Just because something was forced to be recanted, doesn't mean it wasn't true in the 1st place. It only proves that one Gov. objected to it.

I doubt you are enough of an expert to have a personal opinion on how accurate current scientists are in their calculation of past climates. So, you are relying on an unnamed source.

1st you say that scientists have no idea about past climates and CO2 leves, then 2nd you assert that CO2 was much higher at some points in the past.
Whether or not CO2 levels were higher doesn't matter that much.

My source asserts that organisms are fine tuned to the current environment.
Abrupt sustained heating 2000 times faster than ever in the past means that they will not be able to evolve fast enough to survive. They may be able to move, though. If we help them to move.

It was someone else who said 'Eco-apocalypse'

.

[Godstud]

As I asserted, the IPCC is controlled in the end by Govs. Just because something was forced to be recanted, doesn't mean it wasn't true in the 1st place. It wasn't "forced".

They were predictions based on models that simply didn't come to pass. I wasn't talking about governments, but politicians embrace climate change as they can find new ways to tax us(eg. Carbon Tax).

I doubt you are enough of an expert to have a personal opinion on how accurate current scientists are in their calculation of past climates. So, you are relying on an unnamed source.

I based my opinions on facts. The fact remains that climate science is new, and a lot of not known of the past and how modern climate models relate.

1st you say that scientists have no idea about past climates and CO2 leves, then 2nd you assert that CO2 was much higher at some points in the past.
Whether or not CO2 levels were higher doesn't matter that much.

What I said what that scientists can't decide on what levels of CO2 do what. Predictions of Earth turning into Venus, are simply unscientific but some people say that, and it's often used in the eco-apocalypse crowd..

Carbon taxes are based on the false premises that CO2 is harmful. It's not. It's necessary and there is still no consensus on what is good and what is bad. Humans can live in MUCH higher levels than we currently exist in. Most animals can.

My source asserts that organisms are fine tuned to the current environment.

Organisms have changed throughout the history of our planet. Some thrive and others die. This is not a new phenomenon. Your source makes conclusions based on very little actual science. There are many organisms that can adapt readily to changes. It has always been thus.

Abrupt sustained heating 2000 times faster than ever in the past means that they will not be able to evolve fast enough to survive. They may be able to move, though. If we help them to move.

That is a false assertion, as we do not know what happened in the past. Our knowledge of even CO2 levels is limited. Plants THRIVE in higher CO2 levels, which is why most greenhouses run at about 1,000+ ppm.

Krakatoa's eruption lowered world temperatures by a few degrees over a very short time, and it didn't result in extinction of any species.

As I said, much of this hyperbole is based VERY loosely on science that is mostly theoretical and based on 'models' that have questionable accuracy. It is not denying climate change to acknowledge the limitations of our climate science.

[Pants-of-dog]

If realistic scenarios for climate change are wanted, note that the Earth is expected to warm 4 degrees (Celsius) by the end of the century.

This comes with a minimum of 600 mm of sea level rise (about two feet for people using antiquated measuring systems). It will probably be significantly higher, since Antarctic glaciers will cross a tipping point before that and melt far more rapidly. A meter or so seems to be the most likely rise.

[Godstud]

I can find scientific information that says the sea levels only rise by about 10 inches by 2100. There is also information that says it could rise by up to 1.6 m by 2100. The sea level models seem extremely arbitrary, @Pants-of-dog. I am just pointing this out.

The same applies for temperature rise, where I found it was 2.7 C and not 4C. it varies greatly between 1 and 5 C. So we don't have any accurate predictors. It's all arbitrary models, or models on a system thats complexity is still not fully understood. As I said, climate science is NEW.

That is not to say that we don't have a problem. We have to address the problems with realistic solutions, however, and not will talk of doomsday and apocalypse that many think has already past the "tipping point". We also have to be realistic in that the whole world isn't at the same prosperity levels where climate change is a concern.

The person worrying about eating and finding shelter isn't going to be concerned with global phenomenon, and is likely the least likely to make an impact on it, as well. I have seen changes in the developing country I am living in, in only the last 11 years. As they 've become more prosperous, they've started to care more about the environment beyond their own immediate area.

In short, you've sold the idea of climate change to 1 billion people. You've still a long way to go, and radical doomsday prophecies have never worked for social change, no matter how potentially accurate they might end up being.

US Presidents are not worried about climate change. They are worried about money and keeping it flowing to the people who pay for them.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, there are models showing all sorts of scenarios and effects.

The 4 degree rise is the most likely one if no changes are made, and the rise of sea level is the most likely one associated with such a temperature rise.

You were asking for the most realistic scenario. That is it.

And this is just sea level rise, which I picked because the science is quite confident on this one. A four degree rise will bring other problems.

[Steve_American]

I can find scientific information that says the sea levels only rise by about 10 inches by 2100. There is also information that says it could rise by up to 1.6 m by 2100. The sea level models seem extremely arbitrary, @Pants-of-dog. I am just pointing this out.

The same applies for temperature rise, where I found it was 2.7 C and not 4C. it varies greatly between 1 and 5 C. So we don't have any accurate predictors. It's all arbitrary models, or models on a system thats complexity is still not fully understood. As I said, climate science is NEW.

That is not to say that we don't have a problem. We have to address the problems with realistic solutions, however, and not will talk of doomsday and apocalypse that many think has already past the "tipping point". We also have to be realistic in that the whole world isn't at the same prosperity levels where climate change is a concern.

The person worrying about eating and finding shelter isn't going to be concerned with global phenomenon, and is likely the least likely to make an impact on it, as well. I have seen changes in the developing country I am living in, in only the last 11 years. As they 've become more prosperous, they've started to care more about the environment beyond their own immediate area.

In short, you've sold the idea of climate change to 1 billion people. You've still a long way to go, and radical doomsday prophecies have never worked for social change, no matter how potentially accurate they might end up being.

US Presidents are not worried about climate change. They are worried about money and keeping it flowing to the people who pay for them.

Godstud, let me remind you of some facts.
1] YouTube and Google show you what you want to see.
2] To see what you don't want to see, you need to do some digging.
3] You seem to want to see the rosy side of this.
4] Science is inherently conservative. If mostly only says what it can prove to be true. It is hard to prove things about the future.
5] The IPCC is made up of conservative scientists, not the doomers, and 160 plus world Govs. each have veto power over what it reports. So, it keeps saying that things are changing faster than they reported. To me this means, that you need to always expect things to be worse than the last IPCC report said. This is 96% likely.
6] Social change almost never happens in the face of dire warnings. It mostly happens when the elites want it to happen. It happens slowly, mostly as the old die off and the younger people replace them. This is why we have seen zero change in society as a whole on this. Yes, maybe 30% are on board, but 40% are totally against it [in the US and in Europe]. I don't know about Japan and other "western" nations in Asia. I live in Thailand, but I'm totally cut off from the mood of its people, you live here too, do you have any idea about what the Thai people think about ACC?
7] You seem to think that I care about changing society. I learned about this problem from the Club of Rome Report in 1972 or 3. I have spent my entire adult life (= 50 years) trying in my small way to change society. I have made zero impact on society. I don't expect to save humanity. I'm just telling the truth as I see it, in hopes this helps some people to live a better life in the short time we have left.
8] So, I suggest that you do some digging into the aerosol masking effect, and what happens if/when society collapses and the power grid fails so, there is no power going to the pumps to cool the 420 nuclear power plants, so they melt down. I am 98% sure that almost all of them will stop being cooled before they are properly shut down.

.

[Godstud]

1] YouTube and Google show you what you want to see.

Not an argument. It's a deflection. The same applies to what you post.

2] To see what you don't want to see, you need to do some digging.

I have done so. I have looked at ALL the evidence for and against. I am not denying the existence of global climate change. I am for a realistic view and interpretation of it. You'd be foolish to argue that temperatures and ocean levels are not on the rise. The evidence is overwhelming.

3] You seem to want to see the rosy side of this.

I am for the realistic side of this.

4] Science is inherently conservative. If mostly only says what it can prove to be true. It is hard to prove things about the future.

Science is not political. Science deals with evidence. Is evidence Conservative?

People politicize science for their own ends, and this is normally to make money. Facts are facts.

Yes, it's hard to predict the future. That's a given. Models are usually inaccurate and not meant to give a definitive conclusion, but some insight into possibilities.

5] The IPCC is made up of conservative scientists, not the doomers, and 160 plus world Govs. each have veto power over what it reports. So, it keeps saying that things are changing faster than they reported. To me this means, that you need to always expect things to be worse than the last IPCC report said. This is 96% likely.

No. You are attributing politics to a group of scientists. The evidence speaks for itself, and does not require re-interpretation. You are arguing against yourself if you do so, as well. Are you saying the IPCC is wrong and that climate change is NOT occurring?? it can go both ways if you are saying this.

6] Social change almost never happens in the face of dire warnings. It mostly happens when the elites want it to happen. It happens slowly, mostly as the old die off and the younger people replace them. This is why we have seen zero change in society as a whole on this. Yes, maybe 30% are on board, but 40% are totally against it [in the US and in Europe]. I don't know about Japan and other "western" nations in Asia. I live in Thailand, but I'm totally cut off from the mood of its people, you live here too, do you have any idea about what the Thai people think about ACC?

Social change happens slowly. Social change HAS happened, but for some it is not happening fast enough. I know few people who deny that climate change is occurring. What they argue is how FAST it is, and how big of an impact that humans are actually making on it. What they also argue about is the policies that governments are taking to address climate change, with most of the policies being put in place to capitalize on taxation and making money.

Some Thai people know about ACC, but few are in a position to do much about it, or feel that they cannot make a difference. I haven't discussed it in depth with a lot of Thai people.

7] You seem to think that I care about changing society. I learned about this problem from the Club of Rome Report in 1972 or 3. I have spent my entire adult life (= 50 years) trying in my small way to change society. I have made zero impact on society. I don't expect to save humanity. I'm just telling the truth as I see it, in hopes this helps some people to live a better life in the short time we have left.

We all have an impact on society, but we might not see it in our lifetime. We all affect it differently, as well, and to differing degrees. Martin Luther King didn't see vast changes in his lifetime. If he were alive today, he would see big cultural change over the last 50 years.

YOUR truth might not be THE truth. What you do is interpret facts to attain your truth and it is often subjective. Facts are facts.

8] So, I suggest that you do some digging into the aerosol masking effect, and what happens if/when society collapses and the power grid fails so, there is no power going to the pumps to cool the 420 nuclear power plants, so they melt down. I am 98% sure that almost all of them will stop being cooled before they are properly shut down.

I am not planning for doomsday based on your absurd beliefs in a zombie apocalypse of an eco-apocalypse that "surprises" us. I deal with reality, and not conspiracy theories. The idea that all the power grids are going to fail is ridiculous and based on what exactly... Fantasy? A death wish? What?

[Steve_American]

@Godstud.

Godstud, right off you need to grok what I meant by scientists are mostly 'conservative". This is a different usage than the one in politics.
Here it means only saying in public what they can prove. You did say that your friends have a range of opinions on the future of climate change. This is the range I'm talking about. At one end are the doomers and at the other the deniers. Pretty close to the deniers are the conservatives. Many of them think they are realists.

The facts about the future are trivial. Some examples are=> the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, January is colder than July in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Earth will continue to orbit the sun once a year for a long time.

There are no facts when it comes to the future of climate change. Some things are almost facts, like it is going to keep getting warmer on average for a long time, many decades. Like you say, the models' predictions are not facts. You and I get to choose which ones we choose to give more weight to. You choose the rosy ones and I choose ones that are close to the worst/fastest going bad.

I think I'm the realist and you are not facing reality, and you think you are the realist and I'm a radical doomer.
Trust me, the radical doomers are saying humanity will be extinct (over 90% likely) by the end of 2026 (except for some living on nuclear subs, etc. who will live on for a while, but can't get additional food for very long). They see the temp reaching plus 3 deg. C by the end of 2026.

You wrote, "The evidence speaks for itself, and does not require re-interpretation." I totally deny this, if you are talking about the future. Because the future is our topic, I'm justified in assuming that it is the future that you are claiming has facts that are obvious to all and can't be denied. This is what I'm denying.

BTW-- I never, and I think nobody ever, said that humans will die because the CO2 level gets so high that it directly kills us. What I'm saying is that the CO2 level is already so high* that the temp will get much hotter very fast, just years, not decades. And this temp will reduce grain harvests by 50% in a few years or less. This temp will reduce the fish catch by 50%. This temp will kill animals we depend on, like honey bees that pollinate our grain and fruit crops. Etc.
* Note-- methane is already being out gassed in the Arctic at a very high rate and this rate will increase rapidly.

[Godstud]

@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.

[late]

CO2 levels are NOT high.

The rate of increase is extreme, we are in a tipping point now, which means the rate of increase is about to get a lot worse.

[Godstud]

@late according to who?

Can you tell me what are dangerous levels of CO2? I know what they are, but can you identify them and what is "extreme"?

Are you aware of the testing that the USA did in the 1960s on CO2 levels and their effects on humans? Can you tell me what is your doomsday date where anything we do is a waste of time, or is this merely hyperbole?

I have seen the information that we are gaining 2 ppm per year of CO2. Of course, can we assume the same level of growth over the next 200 years or will we start to decrease this? how do you think this affects things? The temp increases are not consistent with the CO2 increases, either. How does that work?