The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[DBT]

What's the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Malthusians?

The former have given up on a specific date, but still insist they know a concrete number of people (that'll be elevated to saints in armageddon) - while the latter have given up on specific numbers of people (for what's too much) but still think they have pretty good idea when it'll happen.

That's quite amusing given that you yourself said that - ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100'' - so the quibble is only about what exactly is going to 'fuck us up' if we 'If we don't 'get up our collective asses and do something big' and whether we are actually taking the necessary steps to prevent being ''pretty fucked by 2100.''

Given that the overall attitude by political and business leaders appears to be 'business as usual,' I'd say that not enough is being done to prevent us from being ''pretty well fucked by 2100''

Cheers.

If you don't see the difference between "we might be struggling to adapt to how quickly the world changes around us" and "there's simply too many of us", there's little I can do to help you.

Struggling to adapt to how quickly the world changes around us entails a set of changing conditions that make us struggle to adapt. Conditions that in your own words, ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100''

Nor did I say "there's simply too many of us" as the sole reason that we will struggle (climate change, rising demand in relation to growing affluence, etc, etc)....so if you recall, I said that its not a single element issue, not food production in relation to climate change alone, not population numbers alone but a collection of elements coming together into a perfect storm in the coming decades that means, in your own words, ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100''

Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[DBT]

What's the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Malthusians?

The former have given up on a specific date, but still insist they know a concrete number of people (that'll be elevated to saints in armageddon) - while the latter have given up on specific numbers of people (for what's too much) but still think they have pretty good idea when it'll happen.

That's quite amusing given that you yourself said that - ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100'' - so the quibble is only about what exactly is going to 'fuck us up' if we 'If we don't 'get up our collective asses and do something big' and whether we are actually taking the necessary steps to prevent being ''pretty fucked by 2100.''

Given that the overall attitude by political and business leaders appears to be 'business as usual,' I'd say that not enough is being done to prevent us from being ''pretty well fucked by 2100''

Cheers.

Didn't Professor Stephen Hawkins predict that we had around 100 years to find another planet humanity could move to or perish? Of course remembering that extinction of life forms on Earth is the rule not the exception!

Well, the next 60 years or so will be the big test of our ingenuity and ability to adapt.

 

[angelo]

It's either adapt or perish. There's really no other choice apart from transforming the planet Mars into an Earth like planet. All it needs is lots of water [enough to produce oceans] and vast plantations of vegetation and the planting of primitive multi cellular life forms. In a few thousand years, presto, a new Earth, or in this case, A new Mars.

 

[bigfield]

It's either adapt or perish. There's really no other choice apart from transforming the planet Mars into an Earth like planet. All it needs is lots of water [enough to produce oceans] and vast plantations of vegetation and the planting of primitive multi cellular life forms. In a few thousand years, presto, a new Earth, or in this case, A new Mars.

I find it amusing that there is someone who thinks that it's possible to terraform Mars but doesn't believe that humans are actually causing the Earth's climate to change.

 

[angelo]

It's either adapt or perish. There's really no other choice apart from transforming the planet Mars into an Earth like planet. All it needs is lots of water [enough to produce oceans] and vast plantations of vegetation and the planting of primitive multi cellular life forms. In a few thousand years, presto, a new Earth, or in this case, A new Mars.

I find it amusing that there is someone who thinks that it's possible to terraform Mars but doesn't believe that humans are actually causing the Earth's climate to change.

Should humanity cease to burn fossil fuels, or even find some magical way to eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow. It would not make one iota of difference to Earth's climate!

 

[bigfield]

It's either adapt or perish. There's really no other choice apart from transforming the planet Mars into an Earth like planet. All it needs is lots of water [enough to produce oceans] and vast plantations of vegetation and the planting of primitive multi cellular life forms. In a few thousand years, presto, a new Earth, or in this case, A new Mars.

I find it amusing that there is someone who thinks that it's possible to terraform Mars but doesn't believe that humans are actually causing the Earth's climate to change.

Should humanity cease to burn fossil fuels, or even find some magical way to eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow. It would not make one iota of difference to Earth's climate!

I'm well aware of what you believe. It's just amusing to observe the internal contradictions in your worldview.

 

[Jokodo]

It's either adapt or perish. There's really no other choice apart from transforming the planet Mars into an Earth like planet. All it needs is lots of water [enough to produce oceans] and vast plantations of vegetation and the planting of primitive multi cellular life forms. In a few thousand years, presto, a new Earth, or in this case, A new Mars.

I find it amusing that there is someone who thinks that it's possible to terraform Mars but doesn't believe that humans are actually causing the Earth's climate to change.

Should humanity cease to burn fossil fuels, or even find some magical way to eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow. It would not make one iota of difference to Earth's climate!

If humanity eliminated all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow, those of us living in houses without heating would freeze to death within weeks, and the rest of us would starve to death within months, as soon as we run out of stockpiled food. You know, there's a little thing about plants and CO2?

 

[lpetrich]

There is a better alternative: reducing atmospheric CO2 to preindustrial levels. That ought to get the climate back to something less dangerous for us.

angelo is dead wrong about how getting rid of atmospheric CO2 would make no difference for the climate. Dead wrong. Our atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. A rather weak one, but enough to keep us warm. It's too much of a greenhouse effect that is a problem. Venus is an extreme case, but there have been similar times of excess, like oceanic anoxic events and the end-Permian mass extinction.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Didn't Professor Stephen Hawkins predict that we had around 100 years to find another planet humanity could move to or perish? Of course remembering that extinction of life forms on Earth is the rule not the exception!

Well, the next 60 years or so will be the big test of our ingenuity and ability to adapt.

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

There is a better alternative: reducing atmospheric CO2 to preindustrial levels. That ought to get the climate back to something less dangerous for us.

angelo is dead wrong about how getting rid of atmospheric CO2 would make no difference for the climate. Dead wrong. Our atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. A rather weak one, but enough to keep us warm. It's too much of a greenhouse effect that is a problem. Venus is an extreme case, but there have been similar times of excess, like oceanic anoxic events and the end-Permian mass extinction.

Look for continued mass migrations and dislocated populations "requiring" our empire to become more and more authoritarian over time. These detainment camps can be ramped up anytime the power structure gets nervous.

 

[skepticalbip]

No one on this board has anywhere near the understanding of climate they think they do... it is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Hell, even climatologists don't understand climate as well as those on this board think they do. CO2 is not the soul determinate of global temperatures and climate. Actual climatologists are well aware of this but the propaganda machine pretends it does. CO2 at five times current concentration levels (>2000ppm) would not create a climate too hot for life - we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant. Earlier periods had CO2 levels several times higher than that and life was abundant.

This doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about humanity's effect on our ecosystem, we certainly should. However it is folly to panic over political doomsday propaganda. Every weather phenomena we don't like is not evidence of the "destruction of the planet by man".

 

[Jokodo]

No one on this board has anywhere near the understanding of climate they think they do... it is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Hell, even climatologists don't understand climate as well as those on this board think they do. CO2 is not the soul determinate of global temperatures and climate. Actual climatologists are well aware of this but the propaganda machine pretends it does. CO2 at five times current concentration levels (>2000ppm) would not create a climate too hot for life - we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant. Earlier periods had CO2 levels several times higher than that and life was abundant.

This doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about humanity's effect on our ecosystem, we certainly should. However it is folly to panic over political doomsday propaganda. Every weather phenomena we don't like is not evidence of the "destruction of the planet by man".

Certainly you're a candidate for Dunning-Kruger effect yourself. To witness: "we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant"

Some of also know that the sun's luminosity was 3-4% lower in the Triassic.

 

[lpetrich]

CO2 at five times current concentration levels (>2000ppm) would not create a climate too hot for life - we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant. Earlier periods had CO2 levels several times higher than that and life was abundant.

That was because the Sun was a little fainter back then. The Sun is gradually getting brighter - it was about 70% as bright as today about 4.5 billion years ago.

The  Carbonate–silicate cycle - volcanism adds CO2 to the atmosphere and weathering consumes it, making rocks contain carbonates.

More atmospheric CO2 -> increased temperature from its greenhouse effect -> increased rock weathering -> more CO2 absorption from that -> less atmospheric CO2.

So the Earth has an equilibrium point of CO2, and that equilibrium point has been slowly decreasing over geological time. In around 1 billion years, it will be very close to zero.

From Wikipedia:

The carbonate–silicate geochemical cycle, also known as the inorganic carbon cycle, describes the long-term transformation of silicate rocks to carbonate rocks by weathering and sedimentation, and the transformation of carbonate rocks back into silicate rocks by metamorphism and volcanism.[1][2] Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere during burial of weathered minerals and returned to the atmosphere through volcanism. On million-year time scales, the carbonate-silicate cycle is a key factor in controlling Earth's climate because it regulates carbon dioxide levels and therefore global temperature.[2]

However the rate of weathering is sensitive to factors that modulate how much land is exposed. These factors include sea level, topography, lithology, and vegetation changes.[3] Furthermore, these geomorphic and chemical changes have worked in tandem with solar forcing, whether due to orbital changes or stellar evolution, to determine the global surface temperature. Additionally, the carbonate-silicate cycle has been considered a possible solution to the Faint young Sun paradox.[1][2]

So we are lucky to have emerged when we did, because in a billion years, the Earth would have become uninhabitable by any large organisms.

 

[lpetrich]

Clues Found That Earth May Have a Thermostat Set to “Habitable” - Eos

In 1981 geologists proposed that the chemical weathering of rocks like granite can draw the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere and, in the process, cool Earth. As cooling progressed, chemical weathering reaction rates would decrease, more CO2 would remain in the air, and warming of the planet would begin again. Although this sort of natural “thermostat” could help explain such puzzles as why CO2 from volcanic eruptions does not accumulate in the atmosphere unceasingly, physical evidence for a mechanism that moderates the planet’s temperature has been lacking.

But new research presented on 14 August at the Goldschmidt2017 conference in Paris showcased telltale chemical data from ancient rocks. The data indicate that falling temperatures during a glaciation about 445 million years ago triggered a process leading to a period of renewed warming, much like a chilly afternoon might trigger your thermostat to turn on the furnace for the night.

This thermostat is too slow to help us with our current global warming - it should be evident that we are making our planet's surface abnormally hot.

Constraining climate sensitivity and continental versus seafloor weathering using an inverse geological carbon cycle model - ncomms15423.pdf
Scientists are solving the mystery of Earth’s thermostat | Popular Science
Carbon Cycle and the Earth's Climate
Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Clues Found That Earth May Have a Thermostat Set to “Habitable” - Eos

In 1981 geologists proposed that the chemical weathering of rocks like granite can draw the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere and, in the process, cool Earth. As cooling progressed, chemical weathering reaction rates would decrease, more CO2 would remain in the air, and warming of the planet would begin again. Although this sort of natural “thermostat” could help explain such puzzles as why CO2 from volcanic eruptions does not accumulate in the atmosphere unceasingly, physical evidence for a mechanism that moderates the planet’s temperature has been lacking.

But new research presented on 14 August at the Goldschmidt2017 conference in Paris showcased telltale chemical data from ancient rocks. The data indicate that falling temperatures during a glaciation about 445 million years ago triggered a process leading to a period of renewed warming, much like a chilly afternoon might trigger your thermostat to turn on the furnace for the night.

This thermostat is too slow to help us with our current global warming - it should be evident that we are making our planet's surface abnormally hot.

Constraining climate sensitivity and continental versus seafloor weathering using an inverse geological carbon cycle model - ncomms15423.pdf
Scientists are solving the mystery of Earth’s thermostat | Popular Science
Carbon Cycle and the Earth's Climate
Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink

Profits come first.

 

[skepticalbip]

No one on this board has anywhere near the understanding of climate they think they do... it is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Hell, even climatologists don't understand climate as well as those on this board think they do. CO2 is not the soul determinate of global temperatures and climate. Actual climatologists are well aware of this but the propaganda machine pretends it does. CO2 at five times current concentration levels (>2000ppm) would not create a climate too hot for life - we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant. Earlier periods had CO2 levels several times higher than that and life was abundant.

This doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about humanity's effect on our ecosystem, we certainly should. However it is folly to panic over political doomsday propaganda. Every weather phenomena we don't like is not evidence of the "destruction of the planet by man".

Certainly you're a candidate for Dunning-Kruger effect yourself. To witness: "we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant"

Some of also know that the sun's luminosity was 3-4% lower in the Triassic.

Exactly what I was saying. CO2 is not the sole determinate of global temperature. All the variables are not known. Real climatologists know this. We know that, long term, the sun's output is increasing. We know that it has a short term variable of eleven years. It is suspected that it may well also have longer term variables. Climatologist have so far been unable to model the effects of cloud cover but they know clouds have a major effect and that higher temperature will create more clouds. Etc. Etc. There is a hell of a lot of unknowns and yet the predictions offered by those predicting doom offer absolute certainty of future global temperature based solely on predicted CO2 levels.

 

[DBT]

Didn't Professor Stephen Hawkins predict that we had around 100 years to find another planet humanity could move to or perish? Of course remembering that extinction of life forms on Earth is the rule not the exception!

Well, the next 60 years or so will be the big test of our ingenuity and ability to adapt.

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

Yes, basically. No doubt that there is a nice balance to be found between living simple rural lifestyles and technological development, but the mind set of business as usual doesn't look like going away any time soon.

Scientific research and discovery probably has no limit to growth, the issue is how this knowledge is used.

Continuing down the path of consumerism doesn't help us a bit.

 

[bilby]

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

Yes, basically. No doubt that there is a nice balance to be found between living simple rural lifestyles and technological development, but the mind set of business as usual doesn't look like going away any time soon.

Scientific research and discovery probably has no limit to growth, the issue is how this knowledge is used.

Continuing down the path of consumerism doesn't help us a bit.

Simple rural lifestyles get you life expectancy of thirty years, frequent starvation, a dozen children (two or three of whom live to see their fifth birthday), disease, squalor and back-breaking toil.

Everything better than that is due to technological development.

The appropriate balance is a pinch of simple rural lifestyle, and a few dozen bulk carriers full of technological development.

Unless you hate human beings, and desperately want them to suffer.

Consumerism is shit. But if the only way to eliminate it was to stop technological development, it would be a price well worth paying.

Fortunately there's no reason whatsoever to think that there's a solid relationship between technological development and consumerism - politico-tribal concretion of concepts and policies is an artificial nonsense, not a law of nature.

 

[DBT]

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

Yes, basically. No doubt that there is a nice balance to be found between living simple rural lifestyles and technological development, but the mind set of business as usual doesn't look like going away any time soon.

Scientific research and discovery probably has no limit to growth, the issue is how this knowledge is used.

Continuing down the path of consumerism doesn't help us a bit.

Simple rural lifestyles get you life expectancy of thirty years, frequent starvation, a dozen children (two or three of whom live to see their fifth birthday), disease, squalor and back-breaking toil.

Everything better than that is due to technological development.

The appropriate balance is a pinch of simple rural lifestyle, and a few dozen bulk carriers full of technological development.

Unless you hate human beings, and desperately want them to suffer.

Consumerism is shit. But if the only way to eliminate it was to stop technological development, it would be a price well worth paying.

Fortunately there's no reason whatsoever to think that there's a solid relationship between technological development and consumerism - politico-tribal concretion of concepts and policies is an artificial nonsense, not a law of nature.

A constant stream of new gee whiz, gotta have that phone, gadget, appliance, etc, the remnants of last year's favourites get dumped into landfill while the packaging ends up in the ocean (/rhetoric) may be one of the things that needs correcting as far as consumerism goes. The trouble is, it this type of consumerism that drives our economic system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should humanity cease to burn fossil fuels, or even find some magical way to eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow. It would not make one iota of difference to Earth's climate!

If humanity eliminated all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow, those of us living in houses without heating would freeze to death within weeks, and the rest of us would starve to death within months, as soon as we run out of stockpiled food. You know, there's a little thing about plants and CO2?

Weeks? Wouldn't there be more inertia than that?