If Global Warming Is Real, I Want It. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14939503
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.

Even if carbon emissions are reduced to hold temperature rises at the 2°C guardrail of the Paris Agreement, changes already afoot in the environment such as melting permafrost and forest die-back could accelerate warming well into the future, potentially pushing our planet into what is being called a “Hothouse Earth” state.

The risk of a hothouse was raised by a recent study, though the authors stressed that it is not inevitable. But what is a Hothouse Earth state, and how will it feel for humans and the rest of nature?

The Earth has been in hothouse (often called “greenhouse”) states before, and there is not one kind of Hothouse Earth, but several. A little like Dante’s circles of Hell, they progress into ever-deeper states of heat and changes to the planet’s biosphere and climate. The end result is undoubtedly hellish, and even the early stages would be, for humans at least, decidedly uncomfortable.

*Scenario One *

The first state last occurred 125,000 years ago, during the previous interglacial phase of the Ice Ages. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were like those of pre-industrial times, at about 280 parts per million (ppm), and global temperatures were generally similar to today. Early humans were present, but in small numbers with only local impact on Earth’s ecology. We might regard it as an Eden of pristine landscapes and ecosystems.

During this interglacial phase, sea levels rose to some six metres above today’s as part of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melted, perhaps as changing ocean currents carried extra heat to the ice. It’s a reminder of how easily sea level can change. Then, animal (including human) and plant communities simply adapted by migrating with the shoreline. Modern civilisation, with its sprawling coastal megacities, would not adapt so easily.



*Scenario Two*

The world at 400ppm CO₂, The last time the Earth saw these kinds of carbon dioxide levels was 3m years ago, well before Homo sapiens appeared, in what is called the “Mid Piacenzian Warm Period” of the Pliocene Epoch. This was warm – but not yet truly hot. The Earth still had a lot of polar ice, especially over Antarctica, but ice on Greenland and West Antarctica was much less extensive, and sea levels were some ten metres or more higher. Global mean temperature was perhaps a couple of degrees warmer than at present, with more warming around the poles than at the equator. If carbon dioxide levels now hold steady, this is the kind of Earth we could be heading towards.

This period in Earth’s history was also Eden-like, with a diversity of life on land and at sea but getting to that state may be traumatic for crowded humanity as the sea level keeps rising.



*Scenario Three* (We are far off from this one still)

A true Hothouse Earth emerged when carbon dioxide levels reached something like 800ppm about double those of today. This was the world of the dinosaurs, 100m years ago. There was little or no ice on Earth and the polar regions had forests and dinosaurs which were adapted to living half the year in darkness.

Dinosaurs flourished in a hothouse world of swamps and rainforest - but they had millions of years to evolve alongside it.

The biosphere thrived, though equatorial regions tested the thermal limits of life. Much of the low-lying land had been claimed by the sea, which was now a worldwide warm bath in which animals steered a course to avoid the large, oxygen-depleted regions, a result of the sluggish ocean currents typical of an ice-free world. Even this type of Earth is not so unpleasant, though – once you’re there.

But it’s the transition that’s tricky. Some combination of unrestrained carbon emissions and the natural feedbacks of greenhouse gas released from melting permafrost and forest die-back might set us on such a trajectory in little more than a century. Humanity, in such a world, might crowd on to the remaining land and mourn its drowned cities. :lol:



*Scenario Four* (Something The Author Admits Is Impossible To Be Man-Made Via Carbon Emissions).

Hothouse Earths can also get hotter during “hyperthermal” events, typically triggered by sudden, massive carbon dioxide releases from extraordinary volcanic outbursts. The larger of these coincided with the times of the great dyings – mass extinction events like those at the end of the Permian Period 251m years ago, in which most life perished through extreme heat, suffocation or starvation. This is where true hell on Earth appears.

The ultimate Hothouse Earth has, thankfully, not yet been reached. If it had, we would not be here to discuss it. It is a runaway greenhouse world like that of our sister planet Venus – heated to the point where the oceans are boiled away, with water vapour streaming through a punctured stratosphere, leaving a furnace-like surface devoid of life.

It seems that even burning all of our hydrocarbon fuels will not yet invite such a state, which is some comfort. However, this is surely the eventual state that the Earth will reach in about one billion years, as the sun heats up. Fortunately, this is not our immediate problem. :lol:

Hothouse Earth is a journey with many stops and even the next few steps would be a bumpy ride for human civilisation. It’s the speed of the change that’s crucial. In a transition stretched out over millennia, humans could probably adapt to even a dinosaur-style hothouse. But if it’s going to come in centuries, or even in a human lifetime, there’ll be trouble ahead.


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

*Starts Looking Up Gas-Guzzling Trucks Online*
#14939520
I am actually interested in the specific opinions of certain PoFo members on this:

@Saeko, @Potemkin, @annatar1914, @B0ycey, @Bulaba Jones, @Sivad, @Godstud, @SolarCross, @Albert,
#14939521
"A literal six day, young earth Creationist, in line with Scripture and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Christian Faith."

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Same here and for the same reasons. Plus, i have no reason not to believe in such, as no theoretical construct erected in challenge to this is logically tenable.

So, since you also claim you think the earth is only 6000 years old, and that its major geological history consists of your god killing everyone apart from one family with a giant flood, your sudden opinion on the desirability of returning to conditions of 125,000 years ago is irrelevant. You don't believe any of the science that has analysed what happened, or what might happen. Or you just start your trolling anew with each thread, without worrying about what you've said in the past. Which also renders your opinion a useless bunch of crap. Either way, your OP is a waste of space and time.
#14939525
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:So, since you also claim you think the earth is only 6000 years old, and that its major geological history consists of your god killing everyone apart from one family with a giant flood, your sudden opinion on the desirability of returning to conditions of 125,000 years ago is irrelevant.


Actually, this is an ad-hominem and a red-herring. Likewise, assuming the position of others in order to critique others is called "running a reductio" and is absolutely valid.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You don't believe any of the science that has analysed what happened, or what might happen.


Which is quite irrelevant. I actually enjoy studying the problems regarding the terra-forming of Mars, even though I am not convinced such a place even exists. I am a true skeptic in many ways. I absolutely love reading evolutionary anthropology even if I regard its metaphysical framework as untenable.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Or you just start your trolling anew with each thread, without worrying about what you've said in the past.


:violin:

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Which also renders your opinion a useless bunch of crap. Either way, your OP is a waste of space and time.


Actually it doesn't, to say otherwise is a fallacy.

There is a real salient point in the OP, which is almost entirely an extended quote of an article from someone who believes such.

Regardless of my cosmology, if climate change and global warming are real, why is it a real problem?

For even if I accepted YOUR cosmology, the point that global warming is going to yield a world that ain't so bad is a legitimate reality given historic precedent (According to evolutionists).

So why should we care about it? The only real argument posted by the OP is that our cities might get flooded and we'll actually have to adapt for a change.

Big whoop.

The world will go on and I might have some tropical beach-front on my central Pennsylvania property for my descendents to capitalize on. Win Win.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 14 Aug 2018 17:54, edited 2 times in total.
#14939526
There is a lot I could say about this, but yeah I basically agree, I would say to keep it simple for now:

1. Warmer temperatures is more good than bad, because it will open up Antartica, Greenland and Siberia to habitation. More water in liquid form may help to reverse desertification too, bye bye Sahara.

2. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more carbon available to the biosphere which means better crop yields, and more life in general.

3. The real looming climate change disaster is another Ice Age which will be the true apocalypse for human civilisation, global warming might be the only thing that could save us from that.
#14939536
SolarCross wrote:1. Warmer temperatures is more good than bad, because it will open up Antartica, Greenland and Siberia to habitation. More water in liquid form may help to reverse desertification too, bye bye Sahara.


Those places definitely need appropriated. ;)

SolarCross wrote:2. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more carbon available to the biosphere which means better crop yields, and more life in general.


Fuck yeah. Bigger tomatoes.

SolarCross wrote:3. The real looming climate change disaster is another Ice Age which will be the true apocalypse for human civilisation, global warming might be the only thing that could save us from that.


Bah!

Cold weather makes you tough. the weak will die, the remainders will become vikings 2.0. This could be a separate debate though.

Good post.
#14939539
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
Cold weather makes you tough. the weak will die, the remainders will become vikings 2.0. This could be a separate debate though.

Good post.


Well the vikings colonised Greenland during the medieval warm period but even they, hard bastards that they were, had to abandon it when the medieval warm period finished; you can't farm a glacier.

Image
#14939574
If you really want the increased migration from the global south, as well as from your own coastlines, then sure.

You do not seem like the type to be pro-immigration, but people are often surprising.
#14939577
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you really want the increased migration from the global south, as well as from your own coastlines, then sure.

You do not seem like the type to be pro-immigration, but people are often surprising.


Immigration does not bother me if there is no welfare state and if I am free to invite or refuse who I want from my own property/businesses etc.

But I don't see why the global south will be the source of major immigration? Coastlines, sure, because of flooding....but why the global south?

Are you thinking of desertification?
#14939590
If you want to make an omelet, you need to crack some eggs.

Rancid wrote:We will survive climate change as a species.


This still sounds too "doomsdayish"

If you read the article, it looks like we are heading for the best times, warm waters, more tropical destinations, greater bio-diversity, healthier crops, etc.

The transition will be hard for urban-dwellers too lazy to leave when their streets get flooded.

:lol:
#14939595
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Immigration does not bother me if there is no welfare state and if I am free to invite or refuse who I want from my own property/businesses etc.

But I don't see why the global south will be the source of major immigration? Coastlines, sure, because of flooding....but why the global south?

Are you thinking of desertification?


1. There is a welfare state.
2. There is no guarantee that you will be able to control who is in your community and their demands on your property and business.
3. Climate change is expected to be a major impetus for global migration.
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change- ... insecurity
#14939599
There is no more Christian sentiment than cheering for the deaths of millions of poor people so that you can have bigger tomatoes :knife:

It's also hilarious that @SolarCross who constantly complains about murderous commies is excited for economic genocide. Obviously the Pinochet avatar was indicative of his hypocrisy about political violence, but still...
#14939600
Pants-of-dog wrote:
1. There is a welfare state.
2. There is no guarantee that you will be able to control who is in your community and their demands on your property and business.
3. Climate change is expected to be a major impetus for global migration.
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change- ... insecurity


Please quote in the article the proof that increasing global temperatures have resulted in specific instances in food shortage.

Pants-of-dog wrote:1. There is a welfare state.


Not in every country, but in my own, for now. I suppose if we have have massive coastal flooding and demographic displacement, that is as much of guaranteer of the end of the welfare states as its own insolvency already is. Not concerning at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. There is no guarantee that you will be able to control who is in your community and their demands on your property and business.


No, but I will shoot trespassers, which is good enough.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Climate change is expected to be a major impetus for global migration.


Possibly, but I don't care that much.

Like I said, your argument seems to be that cultural conservative should care about climate change.

I don't.

and I wonder why anyone on the left cares? Aren't you pro-immigration? If you are, you should support making the climate hotter via c02 emissions as it will help push poor people into more developed nations where they can get a better standard of living.....

No?


Red_Army wrote:There is no more Christian sentiment than cheering for the deaths of millions of poor people so that you can have bigger tomatoes

It's also hilarious that @SolarCross who constantly complains about murderous commies is excited for economic genocide. Obviously the Pinochet avatar was indicative of his hypocrisy about political violence, but still...


Actually, if the OP is correct, there will only be millions of death if people refuse to leave places that are flooding. :lol:

Thats the point, if the article is true about global warming, it doesn't seem like much of a big deal at all. It actually looks like a better future, not a worse one. Ecologically speaking.

I can't speak for SolarCross, but I don't see how this has anything to do with political violence as the only people dying under the OP article's scenario are those who are lazy or maladaptive. Both of which amount to the same thing and are vices both religiously and biologically.
#14939605
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Its not that bad when you take a moment to think about it

From a utilitarian standpoint, yes.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This still sounds too "doomsdayish"

The transition will be hard for urban-dwellers too lazy to leave when their streets get flooded.

:lol:


It will be doomsday for a significant portion of the population, yes. The urban-dwellers that will die are not just the lazy one's, but those that don't have a means to get out. Just like I said, the poorest, weakest, and least educated.
#14939606
@Victoribus Spolia There are currently several refugee crises based on political and economic realities that cause quite a lot of human suffering. You're talking about a much larger group of people relegated to refugee status. You can wash your hands by saying its social darwinism, but it is not a Christian sentiment to be excited for this suffering on the basis of larger tomatoes.
#14939610
Red_Army wrote:There are currently several refugee crises based on political and economic realities that cause quite a lot of human suffering. You're talking about a much larger group of people relegated to refugee status. You can wash your hands by saying its social darwinism, but it is not a Christian sentiment to be excited for this suffering on the basis of larger tomatoes.

I don't think the global south are necessarily losers here. To put it crudely the global north will get arable land from receding ice while the global south will get arable land from receding deserts. The losers are coastal people both South AND North. New York is toast but some dirt poor place on the edge of the Sahara is going to have a boom time.
#14939613
I wonder if mass displaced exodus of humans would play fair for modern civilisation? For VS, who wants savagery and anarchy, I can see why such a proposition would appeal to him. But those who don't want mass migration, be careful with what you wish for. Although better farm yields are fictional in climates that are hot. Unless you want to produce cactus of course.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18
The Popular Vote...

Various off-topic replies about who cares what wh[…]

The union of Europe and Russia.

Russia is a boring modern democracy. Its democrat[…]

The Evolution Fraud

They can't date those bones to a million year ago[…]

The New, and very Dangerous "Left"

People on the "woke" hard-left seem so […]