Suppose Climate Change is real, but we can’t stop it (2 Viewers)

[samiam5211]

At some point even the Greatas of the world may have to admit that climate change is not something we can prevent. Whether or not it is human caused, there will be a point if no return.

Where is the point where humanity is better served by focusing resources on adaptation rather than prevention?

There is likely much overlap between prevention and adaptation.

One example of this might be the activists’ push against fossil fuels...

Maybe we should be trying use as much solar power as possible now to save fossil fuels for a time when we have a period of glaciation in an area where humans live today? Maybe we will need that oil and gas should there be a time when the Midwest is below freezing five months a year. This is not an uncommon situation in Earth’s relatively recent history.

I do believe that the climate is changing and that we will fail to stop it, and we are the ancestors of people who will have to grow their food in different regions from us and get their energy from different places.

The sooner humanity begins to diversify these necessities the better.

 

[MT15]

Oh and that NASA image is the one that you posted earlier and several pages after the image (that you seem to be fixated on) it actually refutes what you are saying explicitly. I already quoted it to you once.

Here it is again though. What it is saying - explicitly - is that the extent of extreme climate events will be affected by “humans’ reliance on fossil fuels, population, CO2 and methane emissions, and use of crop lands”. It is explicitly stating that what humans do WILL affect the severity of climate events.

“You learned about the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) or scenarios, which depend on humans’ reliance on fossil fuels, population, CO2 and methane emissions, and use of croplands. The extent of these extreme climate events will be affected by the RCP path that we select––the lowest, 2.6 or 8.5, the highest, W/m2.”

 

[Sendai]

This guy.

So you know when the next cycle is coming? You have evidence? You think that practically every scientists are this stupid not to consider this variable? You are that superior to them?????

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming - NASA Science

In the last few months, a number of questions have come in asking if NASA has attributed Earth’s recent warming to changes in how Earth moves through space

science.nasa.gov

I've posted this before:

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

Try this.

Scientists match Earth’s ice age cycles with orbital shifts

Earth emerged from the last ice age around 11,700 years ago. A new analysis suggests the next one could be expected in 10,000 years’ time.

news.ucsb.edu

 

[UriUT]

Try this.

Scientists match Earth’s ice age cycles with orbital shifts

Earth emerged from the last ice age around 11,700 years ago. A new analysis suggests the next one could be expected in 10,000 years’ time.

news.ucsb.edu

Dude!!!!! Are you not computing????? Read that damn link. How does that contradict what I posted???????


WHEN IS THE NEXT CYCLE???????????????????????

 

[MT15]

Try this.

Scientists match Earth’s ice age cycles with orbital shifts

Earth emerged from the last ice age around 11,700 years ago. A new analysis suggests the next one could be expected in 10,000 years’ time.

news.ucsb.edu

Do you ever read what you link?

From this article:

“But such a transition to a glacial state in 10,000 years’ time is very unlikely to happen because human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere have already diverted the climate from its natural course, with longer-term impacts into the future,” added co-author Gregor Knorr from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research.

 

[SystemShock]

As I said before, the climate is changing and given the cyclical history of the last 800,000 years there is nothing we can can do about it.

But there is plenty we can do about it. And we should start by slowing climate change to as close to its natural progression as possible, and start planning on mitigating the future effects of climate change, even if the waters eventually rise 20-30 feet around Florida.

As we are today, we have figured out how to literally move mountains, or control where it rains (to an extend, see cloud seeding), redirect rivers... who knows? Maybe in the next 500 years someone engineers a way to keep the glaziers frozen.

But just throwing our hands up and say we can't do anything about it... it's a good thing our ancestors didn't think that way; we would've never progress past Neanderthals.

"It's too cold, we are going to freeze to death, but I found a way to make this hot thing I call fire!"
"Meh, it's too cold, you cant heat up the entire cave, let's just die here".

 

[RobF]

"It's too cold, we are going to freeze to death, but I found a way to make this hot thing I call fire!"
"Meh, it's too cold, you cant heat up the entire cave, let's just die here".

Humans can't even make fire, that's caused by lightning strikes and volcanoes, human influence is insignificant compared to that. /s

 

[RobF]

“You learned about the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) or scenarios, which depend on humans’ reliance on fossil fuels, population, CO2 and methane emissions, and use of croplands. The extent of these extreme climate events will be affected by the RCP path that we select––the lowest, 2.6 or 8.5, the highest, W/m2.”

He also has no idea about what those paths indicate, despite linking to sites describing what they mean. He's claiming:

I’m saying our influence is negligible compared to the likely 20-30 ft sea level increase that will occur naturally in this interglacial warming cycle.

And everything there is wrong:

We're in an unnatural warming cycle - from @UriUT 's NASA link on the last page:

If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.​

​

And under RCP8.5, we're absolutely looking at the possibility of comparable sea level increases.

Anticipating Future Sea Levels - NASA Science

While scientists have grown more confident about projections of sea level rise for the next few decades, many competing factors make it hard to see far into the coastal future.

science.nasa.gov

In its 2019 report, the IPCC projected (chart above) 0.6 to 1.1 meters (1 to 3 feet) of global sea level rise by 2100 (or about 15 millimeters per year) if greenhouse gas emissions remain at high rates (RCP8.5). By 2300, seas could stand as much as 5 meters higher under the worst-case scenario,​

​

5 meters is 16 feet, and you'd have to be an idiot to argue that 16 feet is negligible compared to 20 feet, but I think it's actually worse than that as well, because that article is from 2021 and I think more recent data has indicated the possibility of higher rises than that. E.g. from 2024:

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-are-best-and-worst-case-scenarios-sea-level-rise

By the year 2300, even with strong action to control climate change this century, we could plausibly see a meter or more of sea level rise; in the worst case, the seas could rise a staggering 10 meters (33 feet) or more.​

​

Also, here's a fun illustration from 2016 of a timeline of temperature changes over the last 22,000 years, that really helps underline how daft you have to be to argue this isn't significant and isn't caused by humanity.

Earth Temperature Timeline

xkcd.com

 

[MT15]

Honestly I think this kind of illustrates that he can’t be an LLM. He doesn’t evidently have access to the actual strings of letters. Or cannot be bothered to access them, because of confirmation bias. Or he is possibly an LLM given the instructions to defend Musk and Trump in every case. I will readily admit I don’t know all that much about LLMs.

@RobF - I love xkcd. What a master communicator. And a really good person. His comic series about his partner’s cancer made me weep.

 

[UriUT]

Do you ever read what you link?

I think he thought it a clever retort to my question, "So you know when the next cycle is coming?" and my other comment about how he knows better than the scientists. So he thought, "Ah, scientists do know when the cycle starts or end". However, that wasn't my intention. He incessantly argues that we are in the natural warming cycle and therefore the current cycle isn't significantly man made. What I wanted was to lead the camel to water so that he realizes that the known cycle aren't consistent with his argument.

The irony is that his link contradicts his other contention, as you've already pointed out with that snippet.

As I said before, the climate is changing and given the cyclical history of the last 800,000 years there is nothing we can can do about it.

As RobF pointed out and his own link states that we are in a cooling phase:

The authors found that each glaciation of the past 900,000 years follows a predictable pattern. This natural pattern — in the absence of human greenhouse gas emissions — suggests that we should currently be in the middle of a stable interglacial and that the next ice age would begin many millennia in the future, approximately 10,000 years from now.

So, if "there is nothing we can can do about it." how is it that our careless release of CO2 changing the natural cooling phase? Then, there is something we can do?

Btw, 10,000 years is a very long time. And another 10,000 years for the next cycle. Human civilization has existed, what? 10,000 years? And we shouldn't do anything?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

These are forces beyond our control.

That's a lie. The current climate change that's happening is a direct result of humans burning fossil fuels and releasing millions of years of captured carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a minuscule percentage of the time that it took to capture all of that carbon dioxide.

Funny how MAGA screams "we European Americans are superior and can do whatever we want" out of one side of their mouth while crying "we can't do anything about the climate" out of the other side of their mouth. They tout how billionaires are brilliant visionaries who can solve any problem with their technology genius, except for the climate. They can't do anything about that.

They swerve through every lane like they are flying high on ketamine.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

It’s a force that clearly exceeds human influence. Our influence is negligible.

That's a lie everyone. If you've read most of this thread then you have seen how the above has been resoundingly proven to be a lie. The only reaction to have to the above lie is, why one Earth would someone keep repeating a lie over an over? Why on Earth would anyone keep repeating a lie when everyone knows it's a lie?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I’m simply pointing out it is real and we can’t stop it.

I'm simply pointing out that the above statement is a lie on the whole. We are really causing the current climate change by burning fossil fuels at an extreme rate and we can can stop the current climate change trend in the long term by simply not burning fossil fuels.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Pretty sure my sources describe a long history of glacial and interglacial warming periods.

I know that your sources also say that the current climate change is caused by humans, can be stop in the long term by humans and is not part of any natural climate cycle of Earth.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I guess you missed this

I guess you really love riding merry-go-rounds and all the other amusement park rides that just go round and round and round and round ad nauseam.

 

[Taurus]

I think he thought it a clever retort to my question, "So you know when the next cycle is coming?" and my other comment about how he knows better than the scientists. So he thought, "Ah, scientists do know when the cycle starts or end". However, that wasn't my intention. He incessantly argues that we are in the natural warming cycle and therefore the current cycle isn't significantly man made. What I wanted was to lead the camel to water so that he realizes that the known cycle aren't consistent with his argument.

The irony is that his link contradicts his other contention, as you've already pointed out with that snippet.



As RobF pointed out and his own link states that we are in a cooling phase:


So, if "there is nothing we can can do about it." how is it that our careless release of CO2 changing the natural cooling phase? Then, there is something we can do?

Btw, 10,000 years is a very long time. And another 10,000 years for the next cycle. Human civilization has existed, what? 10,000 years? And we shouldn't do anything?

Part of the problem is that while climatologists are very smart, they're lousy salesmen and they completely misunderstand the target audience.

You could do a Christmas Carol thing with an electric or oil/gas CEO and prove to him beyond a shadow of a doubt that things are catastrophic in 2200, just worldwide anarchy and collapse and when you got back he wouldn't change a thing because 2200 is way, way beyond his concern. He won't be alive, his kids won't be alive and he's got to deliver profits now.

What the watchdogs ought to do is emphasize things like this section of a climate report I found halfway through this article.

Comparing climate impacts at 1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C and 4°C | UN Climate Summit News - COP29

On a high emissions pathway, temperatures would rise 1.5°C by around 2026, 2°C by around 2039, 3°C by around 2060 and 4°C by around 2078.

unclimatesummit.org

Temperature rise of 2°C: how likely is it, and what does it mean? ​

On current trends, global average temperature will rise 2°C above pre-industrial levels before 2050.
Let us repeat for those in the cheap seats
On current trends, global average temperature will rise 2°C above pre-industrial levels before 2050
Limiting temperature rise to 2°C means sharp reductions in global emissions and the rapid reversal of economic and population growth trends observed the last 50 years. If all mid-century net-zero targets that have been announced are met, it would take the world to about 2°C (though with a range of possible warming up to 2.8°C)). Nearly all scenarios that limit temperature rise to 2°C by the end of the century also require measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Lethal heat and humidity: 2.3 billion people would be exposed to deadly combinations of heat and humidity at least annually, over double the population that would have experienced these conditions before global warming. Before global warming, nowhere on Earth was exposed to lethal heat-humidity combinations. Today, 9 million people worldwide are exposed at least once a decade, rising to 210 million people with 2°C of heating. In South Asia, nearly three times as many people would be exposed to combinations of heat and humidity that would kill even a healthy person within hours, even assuming the population remains the same.

Changes to rainfall and water shortages: In a world where temperatures rise 2°C, the amount of rain falling in central and northern Europe in winter could increase 20%, leading to increased flooding. A reduction in rain in southern and eastern Europe and increased evaporation is likely to increase drought in Europe, with the number of droughts more than doubling, a 30% increase in drought duration and a 15% increase in drought area. Globally, 411 million more people living in urban areas will be exposed to water scarcity from severe droughts at 2°C warming. With low population growth, the population exposed to water stress would increase 50% by 2050 compared to today.

All coral reefs disappear: If temperatures rise 2°C, virtually all the world’s tropical coral reefs are at risk of severe degradation and collapse. Coral reefs provide food, income and protection from storms for millions of people along coastal areas. About 25% of fish in the oceans depend on coral reefs. Seagrass meadows and kelp forests will face moderate to high risk above 1.5°C, and very high risks above 2.2°C. Their loss would cause drastic shifts in productive and carbon-rich marine ecosystems.

Animals go extinct: With 2°C warming, 25% of the 80,000 plant and animal species in the world’s most naturally rich areas, such as the Amazon and the Galapagos, could face local extinction by the end of the century. Warming temperatures may affect the behaviour of insects and animals, causing a cascade effect that affects entire ecosystems. 18% of insects, 16% of plants, and 8% of vertebrates could lose 50% or more of their range. Mangroves, and polar species like penguins, seals and bears, will be under threat, while the likelihood of severe drought will quadruple in important habitats in Brazil.

Arctic sea ice melt: The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, and its sea ice has rapidly declined over the last decade. If global temperatures rise 2°C, Arctic sea ice is likely to melt completely – possibly for several months of the year, for several years in a row. This could in turn speed up warming by decreasing the amount of sunlight that is reflected away from the planet.

Food supplies at risk: Worldwide, agricultural yields will fall rapidly as global temperatures rise from 1°C to 3°C. This will leave an additional 8-80 million people at risk of hunger by 2050. The risks of simultaneous multiple failure in maize production would increase from 6% to 54% at 2°C-warming. The cost of adaptation and residual damage to global crops at 2ºC has been estimated at $80 billion a year. Beyond 2ºC, adaptation measures won’t be enough to prevent impacts on food production.

Multiple risks affect Africa and Asia: In a scenario where temperatures rise to 2°C by the end of the century, 29% of the global population face intolerable risks in at least two out of the three main sectors – water, energy and food, and environment. The overwhelming majority of the exposed and vulnerable people are in Africa and Asia, with about half in south Asia alone.

Abrupt change is possible: There are a number of potential tipping points at which abrupt change may occur. The Arctic could become ice-free even in winter, the Amazon rainforest could die off, or the Tibetan Plateau could see the total disappearance of snow and ice cover. It is extremely difficult to know if and when such sudden events will occur – so scientists can only assess changing levels of risk. But in a recent study, half of the potential tipping points identified could be triggered by a global temperature rise of 2°C or less.

Economic damage: If the world warms 2°C, it could lose 11% of total GDP – including about 7% of GDP in North America, and about 8% in Europe. Global labour capacity could fall from 80% to around 70% due to heat and humidity alone.

I have a decent chance of being around and voting in 2050. My kids most certainly will be. Our hypothetical CEO might himself still be kicking by then.

Scientists need to emphasize this. Not far-off projections, but what will happen to the people reading the article, watching the news segment and, most importantly, VOTING right now. Like, this means you, Ma and Pa Kettle. This means you, Millennial Mike and Millie.

 

[Sendai]

But there is plenty we can do about it. And we should start by slowing climate change to as close to its natural progression as possible, and start planning on mitigating the future effects of climate change, even if the waters eventually rise 20-30 feet around Florida.

As we are today, we have figured out how to literally move mountains, or control where it rains (to an extend, see cloud seeding), redirect rivers... who knows? Maybe in the next 500 years someone engineers a way to keep the glaziers frozen.

But just throwing our hands up and say we can't do anything about it... it's a good thing our ancestors didn't think that way; we would've never progress past Neanderthals.

"It's too cold, we are going to freeze to death, but I found a way to make this hot thing I call fire!"
"Meh, it's too cold, you cant heat up the entire cave, let's just die here".

I never said we can’t do anything about it. We are actively creating alternatives to oil and gas. Tesla megapacks. Ford is going into megapacks production. We can reduce or eliminate our current impact. So in 10,000 years we can have a glacial period.

 

[Sendai]

Dude!!!!! Are you not computing????? Read that damn link. How does that contradict what I posted???????


WHEN IS THE NEXT CYCLE???????????????????????

I’d say in 10,000 years. I have my doubts that our warming influence will counter orbital forces. Plus I expect we will have reduced our warming impact over the next 10,000 years.

 

[Sendai]

Do you ever read what you link?

From this article:

“But such a transition to a glacial state in 10,000 years’ time is very unlikely to happen because human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere have already diverted the climate from its natural course, with longer-term impacts into the future,” added co-author Gregor Knorr from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research.

I have doubts that greenhouse gasses will cancel the next glacial period 10,000 years down the line. I expect orbital forces and wobbles will win.

On the other hand it would eliminate the need for millions needing to locate South. Maybe the much, much bigger Florida could accommodate them.