Global warming: Are we doomed? A poll.

[Rahn127]

Local weather patterns are bound to change. Winter is most noticable when you don't get as much snow or you get storm after storm piling on the snow.

The past 10 years we've had mild Winters.
When it should be 40 F outside in December, I've noticed more days that hit 70 F than it normally would. It's gone from 1 day in winter than might be warm to an entire week or two.

But still we can't go by what our local weather is doing. We have to look at the earth as a whole and monitor CO2 levels. We know that CO2 has a blanket like warming effect. A certain amount of heat comes from the sun and normally a certain amount is reflected back out keeping a steady balance. But when you add in the blanket effect from CO2, more heat is trapped in the atmosphere.

That small amount means that a little more ice is melted each day that normally wouldn't be. Over the course of years this means that glacier melt is significantly more. Evaporation of lakes and streams are more widely felt. More energy in the air means bigger storms.

[slartibartfast]

b. The next point is more subtle and difficult, which involves the whole "how do you prioritise" this vs. other things thing. Assuming you can get enough consensus for a. above, where do you rate this problem vs. other global issues?

• poverty
  
• disease (incl. Covid)
  
• food security
  
• ageing populations
  
• human rights violations
  
• pollution / destructions of natural environments
  
• water scarcity
  
• equality
  
• etc...
  

These are all also really really big problems. The truth is that to address climate change you need to take away resources and in some cases work against solutions to address the above - and how the hell does humanity make these types of moral tradeoffs in favour of addressing climate change globally across all countries with completely disparate and oftentimes opposite cultures, needs, ideologies and economical drivers? 

IMO, as long as people believe that addressing the climate issue is detrimental to addressing those...we won't even begin the process.  

Sustainable local agriculture is premised on getting more people housed and working on their own farms which benefit their own communities.  This immediately and intrinsically addresses the first three in one go.  Combined with the fact that contemporary ag exploits it's labor uniformly and on a global scale as well as destroying communities, the environment, wasting water, and concentrating wealth....just one small piece of the push to address climate change, as simple as getting people to garden... touches on the rest.  

Not just for us.  The reason that people starve, today, boils down to the fact that wealthier markets are more lucrative to producers.  The places where the majority of our food is grown also just so happen to hold the poorest and most malnourished populations who are powerless precisely because of this to stop the profligate human rights abuse inflicted upon them as a matter of course, a large majority of whom actually work in the fields to grow the food they can't afford to buy which will be shipped thousands of miles in refridgerated containers to..ultimately, spoil unsold and outcompeted on docks, shelves, or in our homes.  The amount of food that ends up in landfills in the us alone is more than enough to address hunger...and note that this food is sitting in a landfill, not being composted, which necessitates the mining and refining of fertilizers to cover the loss of fertility in production as practiced - one giant extraction industry.

An industry..it deserves mention, that goes full on gangster when anyone points this shit out and offers an alternative.  They'll just starve us to death, if we don't let them exploit us and our environment to death, they say.

Yeah - I get what you are saying, but do you honestly believe that solving any of these other problems comes without cost, energy, focus and need for resource? I am not saying the problems are mutually exclusive. 

What I am saying is that we are a bunch of loosely coupled global societies and by way of example, are you really going to enthuse a country that is, say, contributing only 0.1% of the world's emissions and is struggling from one or more of the other issues above into committing the resources, engaging in the change management and short term cost and tradeoffs to achieve their emission reduction goals enthusiastically? 

Or a country whose economy and wealth (looking at you, Australia) is based on production of fossil fuels would suffer disproportionately in the short-medium term if they were to abandon their primary industry altogether? Are you saying that they would not experience tradeoffs?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah - I get what you are saying, but do you honestly believe that solving any of these other problems comes without cost, energy, focus and need for resource? I am not saying the problems are mutually exclusive. 

That's exactly what you said, and why I responded, because it's a depressingly common objection to climate action in my experience, and simply false.  OFC it's not free, solving any problem has a cost, but solving the climate problem doesn't have to make people poor or hungry.  We already spend the money to solve those problems, we just haven't.. traditionally, selected the most efficient or productive solutions.  For example..we've been spending about 20 billion a year subsidizing oil as a solution.  Will addressing climate change be costly?  Yes..and there's 20 billion to start doing it..right there.  

What I am saying is that we are a bunch of loosely coupled global societies and by way of example, are you really going to enthuse a country that is, say, contributing only 0.1% of the world's emissions and is struggling from one or more of the other issues above into committing the resources, engaging in the change management and short term cost and tradeoffs to achieve their emission reduction goals enthusiastically?

A country that's not contributing to global warming in any meaningful way doesn't have reduction goals to meet..but can they enrich themselves by plugging into other countries reduction schemes?  Yes, yes they can.  In fact, many of those countries have never had an opportunity like this in all of their existence.

Or a country whose economy and wealth (looking at you, Australia) is based on production of fossil fuels would suffer disproportionately in the short-medium term if they were to abandon their primary industry altogether? Are you saying that they would not experience tradeoffs?

Take a look at any hallowed out coal town in the us.  I'm surrounded by them.  That's the eventual fate of any economy or people that might say "but if you don't let us poison the environment for everyone... we'll be pooooor".  You're going to be poor even if you do.  It's only a matter of time.  That's ignoring the fact that most of the people in those industries are already poor. Oil exploits it's labor just as hard as ag does. The numbers are huge..but it's not exactly a communal bank account we're talking about. It's not going into everyone's hands. Perhaps all of the funds and effort that go into building and maintaining that industry should go elsewhere.  Honestly... with regards to australia or any other country that relies on coal, oil and gas extraction...setting fire to them is actually a terrible economic idea to begin with.  It's like winning the lottery and setting fire to the pile of cash that very day. 

We're proposing that there's a tradeoff here, but there isn't..there's only the question of whether those economies have any plan whatsoever beyond fossil fuel extraction.  Most of appalachia didn't..and you see how that went.  





(I know I have an aggressive and impatient tone about all of this, it's not you, I actually deal with this irl and you wouldn't believe the ludicrous shit the industry pulls around here in both greenwashing their own business, gaslighting the people they exploit, and constraining any and every attempt to address it into nothing -but- solutions which they know wont..so that they can then point to those failures and suggest it's all pointless...because it;s solving these problems that's too costly, you see..nevermind how expensive the problem itself has always been and how much more expensive it;s projected to become. Not their problem, they'll fuck off elsewhere and leave the rest of us holding the bag that would be empty were it not for all of the toxicity. Ruined soil, ruined economies, ruined ecosystems..ruined lives. Plenty of meth and hayron though, whoo boy.)

TLDR version, climate action is not a zero sum game - that is extremely targeted and successful messaging...just one part of the torrential wash of misinformation meant to stall or prevent meaningful reforms that would harm entrenched private interests.

[Spongebob]

The really interesting thing about this issue is that we (the population of the planet) have been here before and we seem to reach this same or similar crossroads every once in a while. Wood was once the primary source of fuel and that was quite limited at one point in history. Coal was once the king of all energy and it was suffocating big cities. Whale oil had its moment, though brief, and it threatened the whale population. All of these things have something in common; they are not inexhaustible and they are not without downsides to their use.

[The Grand Nudger]

Alot of what we'd call old tech could be a part of our new future. Solar passive design combined with compost heat and biogas extraction was a solution to the problem of deforestation thousands of years ago.

[slartibartfast]

Yeah - I get what you are saying, but do you honestly believe that solving any of these other problems comes without cost, energy, focus and need for resource? I am not saying the problems are mutually exclusive. 

That's exactly what you said, and why I responded, because it's a depressingly common objection to climate action in my experience, and simply false.  OFC it's not free, solving any problem has a cost, but solving the climate problem doesn't have to make people poor or hungry.  We already spend the money to solve those problems, we just haven't.. traditionally, selected the most efficient or productive solutions.  For example..we've been spending about 20 billion a year subsidizing oil as a solution.  Will addressing climate change be costly?  Yes..and there's 20 billion to start doing it..right there.  

What I am saying is that we are a bunch of loosely coupled global societies and by way of example, are you really going to enthuse a country that is, say, contributing only 0.1% of the world's emissions and is struggling from one or more of the other issues above into committing the resources, engaging in the change management and short term cost and tradeoffs to achieve their emission reduction goals enthusiastically?

A country that's not contributing to global warming in any meaningful way doesn't have reduction goals to meet..but can they enrich themselves by plugging into other countries reduction schemes?  Yes, yes they can.  In fact, many of those countries have never had an opportunity like this in all of their existence.

Or a country whose economy and wealth (looking at you, Australia) is based on production of fossil fuels would suffer disproportionately in the short-medium term if they were to abandon their primary industry altogether? Are you saying that they would not experience tradeoffs?

Take a look at any hallowed out coal town in the us.  I'm surrounded by them.  That's the eventual fate of any economy or people that might say "but if you don't let us poison the environment for everyone... we'll be pooooor".  You're going to be poor even if you do.  It's only a matter of time.  That's ignoring the fact that most of the people in those industries are already poor.  Oil exploits it's labor just as hard as ag does.  The numbers are huge..but it's not exactly a communal bank account we're talking about.  It's not going into everyone's hands.  Perhaps all of the funds and effort that go into building and maintaining that industry should go elsewhere.  Honestly... with regards to australia or any other country that relies on coal, oil and gas extraction...setting fire to them is actually a terrible economic idea to begin with.  It's like winning the lottery and setting fire to the pile of cash that very day. 

We're proposing that there's a tradeoff here, but there isn't..there's only the question of whether those economies have any plan whatsoever beyond fossil fuel extraction.  Most of appalachia didn't..and you see how that went.  





(I know I have an aggressive and impatient tone about all of this, it's not you, I actually deal with this irl and you wouldn't believe the ludicrous shit the industry pulls around here in both greenwashing their own business, gaslighting the people they exploit, and constraining any and every attempt to address it into nothing -but- solutions which they know wont..so that they can then point to those failures and suggest it's all pointless...because it;s solving these problems that's too costly, you see..nevermind how expensive the problem itself has always been and how much more expensive it;s projected to become.  Not their problem, they'll fuck off elsewhere and leave the rest of us holding the bag that would be empty were it not for all of the toxicity.  Ruined soil, ruined economies, ruined ecosystems..ruined lives.  Plenty of meth and hayron though, whoo boy.)

TLDR version, climate action is not a zero sum game - that is extremely targeted and successful messaging...just one part of the torrential wash of misinformation meant to stall or prevent meaningful reforms that would harm entrenched private interests.

I am as frustrated as you - I am not saying any of these objections are OK... sorry if it comes across like that. Just spent the last two evenings watching David Attenborough docos and about all this, and the whole family is getting very depressed.

[GUBU]

By most models, we are or will soon pass the point at which we can't contain global warming and it will become a largely runaway process.

If that happens, it could make the majority of the earth hostile to humans in a relatively short timespan.

Do you think this will happen within 100 years?  Yes or no.

No, although I can't foretell the future.  The biggest variable is how humans will respond in the next several decades.

As for tipping points, different tipping points start at different temperatures and occur within a range of temperatures.  So for instance, melting permafrost will release methane as a positive feedback, and that has already begun in some areas, but won't happen in other areas for decades yet.  The release of methane frozen in the oceans will only happen at much higher and more delayed temperatures.

In other words, since climate change is a slowly moving process, we still have time to halt and reverse it.  We can even build machines which will pull CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it again.  It all depends on how we respond.  However, it is likely already too late to prevent sea-level rise at least up to some disastrous point.

But I think your assumption that "the majority of the earth could be made hostile to humans" is overstated.  Some areas, certainly.  Other areas, like Canada and Russia, could benefit from climate change in the short run.  And remember, at a point we simply run out of affordable fossil fuels to burn, likely within this century.  We will be forced into renewables even if we didn't want to transition voluntarily, by economics alone.

A lot can happen in 100 years, and people will not remain idle.

The very best case scenario out of Cop26, ie if countries quickly implement the stuff they've pledged to promise to think about implementing a strategy into looking at possibly ruminating on ways to begin to start doing, we're looking at 2.4 degrees Celsius rise in temeratures globally before the end of the century. That's mass extinction level climate change right there.

By the 2100's humanity is going to be reduced to, at best, a few small bands of nomad barbarians exing a subsistance out of the very dangerous ruins of the world.

[Alan V]

The very best case scenario out of Cop26, ie if countries quickly implement the stuff they've pledged to promise to think about implementing a strategy into looking at possibly ruminating on ways to begin to start doing, we're looking at 2.4 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures globally before the end of the century.  That's mass extinction level climate change right there.

By the 2100's humanity is going to be reduced to, at best, a few small bands of nomad barbarians eking a subsistence out of the very dangerous ruins of the world.

Climate change is a huge but very slow-moving problem. Oceans will likely take centuries to rise. Feedback mechanisms like the melting of permafrost likewise will take time. The problem is that once these effects begin, they will be very difficult to stop. But as climate scientist Jerry Mahlman said, “There is no need to exaggerate the problem of climate change; it is bad enough as it is.”

A business-as-usual scenario, in which we take no action at all, would be much worse than the 2.4 C rise you mentioned.

At our present emissions rate, with no international efforts to control it, we would likely hit 2.0 C (3.6 F) above the preindustrial average by 2050, with even more warming locked in. By 2100, we could see around 5.0 C (9.0 F) above the preindustrial.

If that was to happen, we would see a number of changes this century. Sea levels will rise a foot by 2050 and 3 to 6 feet or more by 2100, rising as much as a foot or more each decade thereafter. The Arctic sea ice will likely melt away entirely in the summer by 2050. Most mountain glaciers and coral will disappear, and possibly the Amazon rainforest. Around 50% of species will be committed to extinction. Wildfires will increase 100% to 300% for every 1 C rise in the global average temperature.

Billions of dollars worth of Florida real estate could be underwater by 2050. By 2100, the value of drowned properties could exceed a half trillion. The biggest naval base in the world in Norfolk, Virginia will have to be relocated, and hundreds of other military installations will be impacted as well.

By 2045, there could be nuisance flooding every day of the year around the edges of Washington, D.C.; Annapolis, Maryland; and Wilmington, North Carolina, as well as for most of the year in Atlantic City, Miami, and Baltimore. The areas most susceptible to sea level rise will be northeastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Delta, and south Florida. Much infrastructure will likely be lost or damaged, including airports, cities, highways, military bases, nuclear waste storage sites, oil refineries, ports, power and waste treatment plants, railroads, and recreation areas.

By 2050, the ratio of record highs to record lows could shift to 20 to 1. By 2100, the ratio will likely be 50 to 1. By 2060, about half of the U.S. could be in extreme drought a great deal of the time. And once the soil is dry, baking leads to even higher temperatures. Dust bowl conditions could be the new normal in much of the western U.S. by 2095.

So business-as-usual emissions will likely exceed our abilities to adapt. The rate of change will become overwhelming beyond a point.

Again, those are some of the estimated worst-case scenarios for this century, based on business-a-usual projections. They are terrible, but they still don't come close to what you are suggesting. And leveling off at 2.4 C would entail considerable improvements over the worst-case scenarios, even though it would still be dire.

Plus commitments will be tightened further as we actually make progress.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am as frustrated as you - I am not saying any of these objections are OK... sorry if it comes across like that. Just spent the last two evenings watching David Attenborough docos and about all this, and the whole family is getting very depressed.

Yeah, that guy.  Man I love his nature docs..but there's one animal he just doesn't love, lol.  He's a malthusian doomer.  Anything and everything is a reason to get the filthy poors to stop breeding, like that were the issue.  If you come off with the impression that nothing short of the end of the human race is acceptable, then mission accomplished.

The very best case scenario out of Cop26, ie if countries quickly implement the stuff they've pledged to promise to think about implementing a strategy into looking at possibly ruminating on ways to begin to start doing, we're looking at 2.4 degrees Celsius rise in temeratures globally before the end of the century.  That's mass extinction level climate change right there.

By the 2100's humanity is going to be reduced to, at best, a few small bands of nomad barbarians exing a subsistance out of the very dangerous ruins of the world.

The reason that cop26 is a sham is that it's an oil lobbyist luncheon.  Greenwashing on a global scale.  Making commitments we won't keep that would be insufficient even if we did.

[Ranjr]

2000:  It's not happening.

2005:  It's a natural process, a blip that will go away.

2010:  It's a hoax by climate scientists wanting more grant money.

2015:  It's the sun.

2020:  Oops, too late, and it's all China's fault.  Best keep drilling.