Environmental Mega-disaster within 100 years

[uke2se]

One is all I need to prove my point that doom sayers ignore the pluses of warmer climate. Off the top of my head, the Northwest Passage has been used already. Done.

Many if the rest that I mentioned up thread are givens, that basically the moderate climate zone will shift north. NOT just that the equatorial deserts will expand. There WILL be changes to ocean temps and currents. They can not be ALL bad.

At least Distracted1 admits in post 76 that there will be some pluses. Now it is a matter of degree, but nobody wants to discuss that.

And I have shown that all of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland is NOT going to melt and cause a biblical flood within the next few decades. Or ever maybe.

Exaggerators of Doom, the lot of you.

The Northwest Passage opening is a plus of climate change? As in, plus that will help offset the many many minuses?

ETA: As for Antarctica cooling and not losing ice, please check link in my sig. You are wrong.

 

[Belz...]

One is all I need to prove my point that doom sayers ignore the pluses of warmer climate. Off the top of my head, the Northwest Passage has been used already. Done.

So any plus of any importance whatsoever, no matter its magnitude or our ability to make use of it, somehow makes the rest of us alarmists?

That makes no sense whatsoever. So when you say you're not a denier, I'm not sure I believe you.

Many if the rest that I mentioned up thread are givens, that basically the moderate climate zone will shift north.

Global warming's not that simple.

And I have shown that all of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland is NOT going to melt and cause a biblical flood within the next few decades. Or ever maybe.

That's because biblical floods are impossible. No, it's not all going to melt within the next few decades. So what?

Exaggerators of Doom, the lot of you.

Oh, I get it. The idea is uncomfortable to you, so you just plug your ears and say "la la, I can't hear you". I'm sure that'll help.

 

[a_unique_person]

And the chart shows that most of Antarctic is cooling.

Sorry, no huge sea level rise coming from there.

2004 you say?

 

[xjx388]

How come all of the dire predictions we hear about are for some far-off time frame? I've been hearing for most of my life about the horrible things that will happen 50 to 100 years from now if we don't change our ways. In 100 years, even my 9 month-old grandchild's children will be old/gone. I think they would be more effective in motivating people to change if they talked about all the bad things that are likely to happen in the next 5-10 years. If catastrophe will happen within 100 years, it's not like it's just all going to go BOOM at that time. There will be a progression towards catastrophe. So what does that progression look like and how will it affect us who are around right now and our children?

 

[Oystein]

How come all of the dire predictions we hear about are for some far-off time frame? I've been hearing for most of my life about the horrible things that will happen 50 to 100 years from now if we don't change our ways. ...

Are you old enough to remember all the wonderful, utopian technical wonders that we'll have in the far-away year 2000? Mega-cities that float on balloons, pipe-taxis to the moon, all-glass bungalows under the sea, heated by volcanic vents, synthetic salmon from the nuclear factory...

 

[uke2se]

How come all of the dire predictions we hear about are for some far-off time frame? I've been hearing for most of my life about the horrible things that will happen 50 to 100 years from now if we don't change our ways. In 100 years, even my 9 month-old grandchild's children will be old/gone. I think they would be more effective in motivating people to change if they talked about all the bad things that are likely to happen in the next 5-10 years. If catastrophe will happen within 100 years, it's not like it's just all going to go BOOM at that time. There will be a progression towards catastrophe. So what does that progression look like and how will it affect us who are around right now and our children?

I'm sorry the climate isn't adapting to your time-scale.

The catastrophe has already started, by the way. You are right. It will not just go "BOOM". It's a drawn out process. We're not likely to see major effects, such as Miami being under water, for another 50-100 years. But it's already started, and it'll keep ramping up, getting a little bit worse every year.

But sure, If your grand-child's children will be gone by then, who cares, right?

As for how it will effect us/our children: It'll hit developing countries the hardest, as they will not have the means to protect their population from failing crops and scarcity of fresh water. That'll kick off refugee floods. If you're actually interested, and not just trying to score internet points for denial by JAQing off, feel free to look at the link in my sig. It'll take you through the common denialist arguments. From there, you can read the actual science.

 

[Belz...]

How come all of the dire predictions we hear about are for some far-off time frame? I've been hearing for most of my life about the horrible things that will happen 50 to 100 years from now if we don't change our ways. In 100 years, even my 9 month-old grandchild's children will be old/gone. I think they would be more effective in motivating people to change if they talked about all the bad things that are likely to happen in the next 5-10 years. If catastrophe will happen within 100 years, it's not like it's just all going to go BOOM at that time. There will be a progression towards catastrophe. So what does that progression look like and how will it affect us who are around right now and our children?

So because it'll kill people you will never know it's not worth your bother? In 5-10 years it probably won't make too much of a difference. Don't you care at all for other people but yourself and your loved ones?

 

[xjx388]

So because it'll kill people you will never know it's not worth your bother? In 5-10 years it probably won't make too much of a difference. Don't you care at all for other people but yourself and your loved ones?

Sure, in an abstract sense. But do I care about people I will never meet enough to make huge sacrifices right now? Probably not. I don't think I'm very different from the rest of humanity in this respect. I think we all care about the suffering of people right now in, say, Haiti. But are we all making huge sacrifices in our daily lives to actually do things that will improve their lot in life? Not really.

But show me how climate change is likely to affect me and my kids and their kids and you have my attention. My point is that if we want humans to change their behavior, you have to show them what will happen to them and those they love if they don't change. 100 years is too far off to be meaningful to anyone who is old enough to actually do anything.

What about 25 years? What will the world be like in 25 years if I don't switch to bicycle transportation, get rid of my AC and plant 25 trees (an exaggeration, but you get the point)?

 

[xjx388]

Are you old enough to remember all the wonderful, utopian technical wonders that we'll have in the far-away year 2000? Mega-cities that float on balloons, pipe-taxis to the moon, all-glass bungalows under the sea, heated by volcanic vents, synthetic salmon from the nuclear factory...

Yup, it's either we live in Hell-on-Earth or we live in Utopia. No one ever predicts that we'll live in basically the same kind of boring reality we always have albeit with some cooler stuff.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, I actually mentioned that. It's the "gravity field" bit that I didn't know about.

I misunderstood, I *should* have realised that lomiller was being precise in (his?) teminology, as opposed to being slightly sloppy and conflating weight and gravity.

My reaction was the same as yours once I read your link...

But you still list ZERO positives.

I'm not a denier saying it isn't warming, I'm a realist saying there are pluses to warming. You folks are Alarmists.

My point is that the environmental benefits to an area will be massively outweighed by the geopolitical effects of *change*.

It doesn't matter if the shifting rainfall pattterns turn the Central Asian Steppe into a highly fertile grainbasket, if the shift in rainfall makes nearby countries unable to sustain themselves.

If you then apply that logic to the Middle East and India and China (the reduction of glacial meltwater rivers is potentially massively damaging) then you have nuclear-armed nations facing famine, and with refugee crises. That is not a pretty picture, and would outweigh any positive.


With nation states and fixed borders, any realistic change in climate patterns is almost certain to be bad

 

[xjx388]

I'm sorry the climate isn't adapting to your time-scale.

The catastrophe has already started, by the way. You are right. It will not just go "BOOM". It's a drawn out process. We're not likely to see major effects, such as Miami being under water, for another 50-100 years. But it's already started, and it'll keep ramping up, getting a little bit worse every year.

But sure, If your grand-child's children will be gone by then, who cares, right?

As for how it will effect us/our children: It'll hit developing countries the hardest, as they will not have the means to protect their population from failing crops and scarcity of fresh water. That'll kick off refugee floods. If you're actually interested, and not just trying to score internet points for denial by JAQing off, feel free to look at the link in my sig. It'll take you through the common denialist arguments. From there, you can read the actual science.

I think you are missing my point. I'm not advocating for denialism here; I accept that scientists are right about climate change. I would argue about how accurately they can predict the future consequences of inaction. But more importantly, what I'm getting at is that a 100 year timescale is too far away to influence current behavior. One of the reasons for that (at least for me but I don't think I'm so different from most people) is that for my whole life I've heard, from scientists, about how ecological disaster is just around the corner. Consider this example from 1970.

...scientists have solid theoretical and experimental evidence to support each of the following predictions:

In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution.

In the early 1980s, air pollution combined with a temperature inversion will kill thousands in some US city.

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.

Now, obviously, none of that stuff ever happened. The predictions were even within the timescale I talked about. Throughout the 70's and 80's we kept hearing about how there was going to be some Great Die Off (which was an actual term used) of humanity because of over population and environmental disasters. But here we still are.

So can you at least understand that after being subjected to decades of environmental wolf-crying, that a reasonable person might start to ignore and even ridicule the Boys Crying Wolf?

Don't misunderstand: I do believe that climate change is a real threat. But having heard so much from scientists over the course of my life, just what exactly is the real threat? What is the real and predictable timeline of such threats? What steps should I actually take right now to mitigate the threat. I think the answer to all those questions is, "We don't really know." All we really know how to do is scare people, as the history of reporting on environmental threats shows. I think it's time for a new approach if we really want to get people to change.

 

[jimbob]

The pollution causing thousands of deaths almost certainly did happen and still is happening in the US (And the UK)

http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

 

[Belz...]

Sure, in an abstract sense.

You care about people in an abstract sense? What does that mean?

But do I care about people I will never meet enough to make huge sacrifices right now? Probably not. I don't think I'm very different from the rest of humanity in this respect.

No, you're not, and neither am I, and that's a problem right now, because it might get most of us killed.

But show me how climate change is likely to affect me and my kids and their kids and you have my attention. My point is that if we want humans to change their behavior, you have to show them what will happen to them and those they love if they don't change.

But in this case it's not going to affect your kids, probably. So there's no way to make you interested in this issue in any way?

 

[Oystein]

...for my whole life I've heard, from scientists, about how ecological disaster is just around the corner. Consider this example from 1970.

Now, obviously, none of that stuff ever happened. The predictions were even within the timescale I talked about. Throughout the 70's and 80's we kept hearing about how there was going to be some Great Die Off (which was an actual term used) of humanity because of over population and environmental disasters. But here we still are.

Certainly, the most extreme of those predictions were extreme, and I am not sure these reflected scientific consensus at the time.

On the other hand, measures were taken to prevent these scenarios from coming true. Emissions of gas, aerosols and harmful liquids are now strictly filtered - in the west. Perhaps you have seen images from Beijing where for some years, city air did resemble the dire prophecies.

... But having heard so much from scientists over the course of my life, just what exactly is the real threat? What is the real and predictable timeline of such threats?

Not being sure if the bear will bite, hit, scratch or suffocate you to death is no good reason not keep the bears away.

What steps should I actually take right now to mitigate the threat. I think the answer to all those questions is, "We don't really know." ...

Actually, we do know: Decrease your personal use of fossil fuels, by not using the car whenever you can avoid it, using more energy efficient devices, and entering into treaties with suppliers of regenerative energy. Vote for politicians mindful of these problems.

 

[xjx388]

You care about people in an abstract sense? What does that mean?

It means that I care about my "fellow man," but not like I care about my family and the people I actually know.

No, you're not, and neither am I, and that's a problem right now, because it might get most of us killed.

Well, not most of us. More like a bunch of future people we'll probably never even share the earth with. Which goes back to the "abstract" idea. I can picture a Hell-on-Earth apocalypse because of out-of-control climate change and millions dying in the street and I know that some of my direct descendants will surely perish. But that's true 100 years from now or 4 billion years from now when the sun explodes. Both of those futures are equally unknowable and abstract to me - as much of history is.

But in this case it's not going to affect your kids, probably. So there's no way to make you interested in this issue in any way?

Ironically, I am interested. I own a hybrid (I had a Tesla but Texas ain't too good for convenient charging during travel -though it's getting better). I'm planning my solar power system. I Energy-Smarted everything I could in my house. I have nothing but LED lightbulbs in my fixtures. But you know what motivated that behavior? A dash of care for the environment and a heaping tablespoon of wanting to save money on gas, taxes and electricity. That's the way you reach people: through their pocketbooks.

 

[Belz...]

It means that I care about my "fellow man," but not like I care about my family and the people I actually know.

Ok, that's not abstract. That's having different levels of care.

Well, not most of us.

Us being humans. Stop being so self-centered.

But you know what motivated that behavior? A dash of care for the environment and a heaping tablespoon of wanting to save money on gas, taxes and electricity. That's the way you reach people: through their pocketbooks.

You're not going to save money on the hybrid at their sale price.

 

[xjx388]

Ok, that's not abstract. That's having different levels of care.

Because of different levels of thinking. There's what's immediately real to me and then there's what's only abstractly real. Maybe a little philosophical . . .

Us being humans. Stop being so self-centered.

Because I'm human, I am self-centered. I don't believe that humans are inherently altruistic nor do I think that any action is done solely out of altruism. More philosophy but I think it's apt.

You're not going to save money on the hybrid at their sale price.

It may not be a huge savings over a similar sized/equipped car but coming from my beloved pick-up truck, it's pretty huge for me. I think the real savings will come when electric cars are more widely adopted. But there's so much rent-seeking from oil companies and (in Texas at least) car dealers that it may not be practical for another few years. I don't hear too many politicians campaigning on what seems to be such a no-brainer: develop the infrastructure for widespread adoption of electric cars.

 

[deadrose]

A lot of the weakening of ice shelves in Antarctica is coming from the bottom. Shifting currents are causing underwater rivers of warmer water to flow under the ice, which is thinning the ice shelves rapidly.

Another big problem is that the increased sea temperatures are killing coral reefs at unprecedented rates. Reefs are the nurseries for quite a number of fish species. Combined with the overfishing problems we're destroying a major food source at both ends. If you're looking for a bright side, we won't have to plan on eating krill patties for protein, because they'll be gone too.

 

[uke2se]

I think you are missing my point. I'm not advocating for denialism here; I accept that scientists are right about climate change. I would argue about how accurately they can predict the future consequences of inaction. But more importantly, what I'm getting at is that a 100 year timescale is too far away to influence current behavior. One of the reasons for that (at least for me but I don't think I'm so different from most people) is that for my whole life I've heard, from scientists, about how ecological disaster is just around the corner. Consider this example from 1970.



Now, obviously, none of that stuff ever happened. The predictions were even within the timescale I talked about. Throughout the 70's and 80's we kept hearing about how there was going to be some Great Die Off (which was an actual term used) of humanity because of over population and environmental disasters. But here we still are.

I would advice you to get your science news from scientists in the future, and not from Life Magazine. The failure here is entirely yours. You failed to be skeptical of your source. Now you are applying that failure to what scientists are saying today. That's not skepticism.

So can you at least understand that after being subjected to decades of environmental wolf-crying, that a reasonable person might start to ignore and even ridicule the Boys Crying Wolf?

No. I cannot understand that, because I don't get my science news from Life Magazine.

Don't misunderstand: I do believe that climate change is a real threat. But having heard so much from scientists over the course of my life, just what exactly is the real threat?

You haven't heard what you've heard from scientists. You are hearing it now tho.

What is the real and predictable timeline of such threats?

Again, I invite you to read the link in my sig.

What steps should I actually take right now to mitigate the threat.

Vote for people who accept the problem and who present a plan to start dealing with it. You can't deal with it on your own. Bicycling won't solve the issue.

I think the answer to all those questions is, "We don't really know."

You are wrong. We have a good idea.

All we really know how to do is scare people, as the history of reporting on environmental threats shows. I think it's time for a new approach if we really want to get people to change.

Being scared by the scary is perfectly normal. Nobody is trying to scare you.

 

[Belz...]

Because I'm human, I am self-centered. I don't believe that humans are inherently altruistic nor do I think that any action is done solely out of altruism.

Humans are social animals. We're not entirely self-centered as we are group-centered.