The issue, at least as some of us see it, is the degree of suffering experienced by us and other humans - including that which is to be experienced by future generations - while alive — javra

Finally, an element of intelligence in this conversation, rather than hysteria. Then one gets into the nitty gritty of degrees of suffering and how to possibly mitigate some of that.

rather than hysteria — jgill

I think that might have been sexist.

I think that might have been sexist. — frank

Oh oh. I apologize to Ms Xtrix. :worry:

Thank you.

Read The Long Thaw by David Archer. He says there is no reason to believe humans won't survive the changes. — frank

You haven't read David Archer -- who's a serious person and a climate scientist.

As I've said before, there is very good reason to believe it could wipe us out completely. That's one scenario. I view it as the most likely IF we don't take significant actions.

True, there's a chance it may not wipe us out if we continue business as usual. There's a chance nuclear war won't wipe us out either. That seems to be comforting enough for you.

Human extinction due to AGW? Who said that? — frank

Climate scientists. What you don't seem to understand, but which I'll repeat again, is that this assumes "business as usual," which is what I (and Tim) mentioned. There are feedback loops and tipping points that can be reached -- it's called the "hothouse earth" scenario, and many climatologists take it quite seriously. Not surprising that you've completely missed all the literature on this.

Here's a good starter:

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf

“...attention has been given to a ‘hothouse Earth’ scenario, in which system feedbacks and their mutual interaction could drive the Earth System climate to a point of no return, whereby further warming would become self-sustaining. This ‘hothouse Earth’ planetary threshold could exist at a temperature rise as low as 2°C, possibly even lower."

[...]

From an interview about the above:

“Our argument is in essence that on the present path, including the commitments in Paris, warming will be three or three and a bit degrees. If you include climate cycle feedbacks, which are not included in the IPCC analysis, it’ll be effectively higher.” For both those claims, there’s significant published science backing him. Then he gets to the controversial bit: “Three degrees may end our civilization.”

For that claim, he cites climate scientist John Schellnhuber, who said in an interview early this year, “if we get it wrong, do the wrong things ... then I think there is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation,” and UN Secretary General António Guterres, who has said “The problem is that the status quo is a suicide.”

--Here

Again -- these arguments could be wrong. The arguments about whether a nuclear holocaust would truly wipe out every human being could be wrong too. But I see no reason not to take them seriously, and absolutely no reason to dismiss or ignore them outright (a line that you've apparently taken, for whatever reason).

"A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor. We must act collectively. We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind."

And, while others will speak for themselves, I for one don't find overall positions such as that of Xtrix's in any way discordant to the issue I've just addressed. — javra

That climate change, like nuclear war, is an existential threat? Good. When I say this, I'm repeating what I've read from scientists, not the media.

People don't like hearing this, of course. That's the real issue. So maybe it's better to pretend these scenarios don't exist -- I don't know, I'm not a politician or pundit. But even if they aren't true, and humans will go on living -- I don't think anyone would want to live in that world, or have their grandkids live in it.

Those who dismiss it all as "alarmism" simply represent another variant of climate denialism.

And there is some evidence to support the notion of "tipping points." Or do you think this is all nonsense? — tim wood

You have to be aware that these positions even exist, and Frank has done his best to avoid them because it doesn't feel good.

Thanks for reading what I wrote and taking the time to correct me, you're right I didn't really think what I said through. But I'm honestly confused as to what you mean by get things moving. Do you mean get things moving to avoid 4 degrees by 2050? If so, I doubt that's really possible. With pledges increased and continuing to increase, I think that even in 2021 we could get below 2 degrees by 2100 with further pledges in 2025 and 2030. The business as usual scenario would probably be like if we had our current pledges now and stopped doing anything else for the next 50 years which is incredibly unlikely.

If the Hothouse Earth Hypothesis is correct, then stabilising at or above 2°C would lead to a gradual but inevitable drift up to 4°C by say the year ~3000 (because of the tipping points i think) making the 2-4°C range impossible to remain stable in on long timescales. But as you can read here, a lot of scientists are unsure if it would really trigger past 2 degrees:

https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/10/14/fact-check-will-2c-of-global-warming-trigger-rapid-runaway-feedbacks/

I have that website on my bookmarks bar. I came across it on Reddit. Is that where you found it by chance?

--Here — Xtrix

I actually read most of the articles and papers linked too here, and if anything a lot of scientists seem agree that climate change is very unlikely to be an existential risk. It's for the most part politicians and policy advisors that seem to be overstating the scientific case, I would presume because they think that is needed to inspire political action.

And while I do think climate change is a serious problem that needs to be resolved, I don't think this kind of rhetoric serves that cause really. I think it damages their credibility, handing out free ammunition to climate deniers... and maybe more importantly accurate assessment of risks is important to determine what kinds of drastic solutions we need to consider to solve the problem.

What could potentially be an existential risk, and typically not included in these risk-analysis, are the social and political problems we cause as a reaction to the effects of climate change. The last thing we need it is more oil on the fire of an already overheated debate (pun intended!).

I actually read most of the articles and papers linked too here, and if anything a lot of scientists seem agree that climate change is very unlikely to be an existential risk. — ChatteringMonkey

That's just nonsense. Climate change is an existential risk -- there's little doubt about that. What you -- and others -- want to do here is split hairs: "Well, it's not really existential because some humans may survive" or "We'll probably get enough things done, so it's not very likely," etc. You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

I'll repeat a thousand times: if we keep business as usual -- which means the pace we're going, pumping more and more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- we're dead. Yes, the IPCC doesn't put it quite like that, but they have to be balanced. This latest leak shows how alarmed they're getting.

Between the IPCC and climate denial there's another large group: those who believe we're under-estimating the effects of climate change. If you pay attention to the news lately, again and again you read of how scientists have underestimated how quickly these negative effects would happen, whether it be the ice caps melting or whatever else. That doesn't seem to get much attention from the major media.

So yes, we should be much more alarmed than we are right now. Much more. In the same way we would be if an asteroid were approaching Earth. In that scenario, I'm sure there'd be people who claim it's "asteroid alarmism." but that's not really worth much attention.

And while I do think climate change is a serious problem that needs to be resolved, I don't think this kind of rhetoric serves that cause really. I think it damages their credibility, handing out free ammunition to climate deniers... and maybe more importantly accurate assessment of risks is important to determine what kinds of drastic solutions we need to consider to solve the problem. — ChatteringMonkey

What kind of rhetoric? The truth?

If by "rhetoric" you mean claiming that "we're doomed," then yes -- that's stupid, does no good, and isn't true. That's not what I'm saying, nor what climate scientists are saying.

If that's difficult, I'll put it this way: an asteroid is heading to earth. (1) If we do nothing -- what happens? We're dead. (2) If we act, we'll survive. Suppose someone starts saying, "We're doomed." What does this imply exactly? It seems to exclude (2), and thus no matter what we do we're dead.

So no, we're not doomed. But we need to start being far less nonchalant about this, and start taking it much more seriously. I see it in this very forum. Not outright denial, but not nearly alarmed enough. I chalk it up to not paying attention.

But I'm honestly confused as to what you mean by get things moving. Do you mean get things moving to avoid 4 degrees by 2050? If so, I doubt that's really possible. — Albero

If we hit 4 degrees Celsius by 2050, we can wave goodbye to human life as we know it. If you think that's somehow not "really possible," then you're resigned to our probable demise. That's fine. But in that case, one would think you'd be on the front lines of this issue rather than pacifying yourself with articles about how these scientists are "probably" wrong about the effects and are being a bit too pessimistic.

If the Hothouse Earth Hypothesis is correct, then stabilising at or above 2°C would lead to a gradual but inevitable drift up to 4°C by say the yea — Albero

What?

It's not inevitable, and it's not about 2 degrees C. It's about whether we trigger various tipping points which speeds up the effects. That's very possible even at 2C, but not inevitable. I also don't know where exactly you get the year 3000 -- but it seems to me there's a lot of talk about how "far away" the effects of climate change are, which makes me rather suspicious.

"The year 3000? Eh, we'll have it figured out by then." So now we can all continue on with our lives. Meanwhile, every year is breaking temperature records and there's major wildfires, heat waves and draughts as we speak.

Let me save all the "it's not an existential threat" crowd on here some time. Here's Republican Dan Crenshaw for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQAGr1s1XFc

If you're convinced by this, that's your own issue.

That's just nonsense. Climate change is an existential risk -- there's little doubt about that. What you -- and others -- want to do here is split hairs: "Well, it's not really existential because some humans may survive" or "We'll probably get enough things done, so it's not very likely," etc. You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. — Xtrix

I'm splitting hairs when that's how the term is used in the article you linked to and literally the conclusion of the article?

So where does this all leave us? It’s worthwhile to look into the worst-case scenarios, and even to highlight and emphasize them. But it’s important to accurately represent current climate consensus along the way. It’s hard to see how we solve a problem we have widespread misapprehensions about in either direction, and when a warning is overstated or inaccurate, it may sow more confusion than inspiration.

Climate change won’t kill us all. That matters. Yet it’s one of the biggest challenges ahead of us, and the results of our failure to act will be devastating. — article

And apparently it's not even close to an existential risk, even in worst case scenario's:

Further, “the carbon effects don’t seem to pose an existential risk,” he told me. “People use 10 degrees as an illustrative example” — of a nightmare scenario where climate change goes much, much worse than expected in every respect — “and looking at it, even 10 degrees would not really cause the collapse of industrial civilization,” though the effects would still be pretty horrifying. — article

What kind of rhetoric? The truth? — Xtrix

Poltical rethoric from climate activists and the like... Of course there is rethoric from both sides, that is what happens in politics, only scientists are after the truth.

If that's difficult, I'll put it this way: an asteroid is heading to earth. (1) If we do nothing -- what happens? We're dead. (2) If we act, we'll survive. Suppose someone starts saying, "We're doomed." What does this imply exactly? It seems to exclude (2), and thus no matter what we do we're dead. — Xtrix

See that is exactly not what this problem is, and only further proves the point I was trying to make. Climate change is a slow building problem and can have varying effects on a wide spectrum over centuries and millenia depending on how much greenhouse gasses will be pumped into the atmosphere. It's nothing like an astroid hitting the earth where we either prevent the impact or die immediately.... The analogy is only good if you want to scare people into action, it's rethoric.

Let me save all the "it's not an existential threat" crowd on here some time. Here's Republican Dan Crenshaw for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQAGr1s1XFc

If you're convinced by this, that's your own issue. — Xtrix

I've said this before, I'm not an American, I'm not invested in republic-democratic politics either way. I fully expected some cherry-picking of scientific findings at best and outright distortion of the science more probably... to suit his political agenda. He's a politician afterall, that's what I expect.

But I have to say the claims he's making in this particular video concerning the impact of climate change don't even seem to be all that outrageous (i'm not talking about the particular policies he proposes, which I generally don't agree with). And sure he leaves out a whole lot, but science does seem to support the things that he does say. Democrats are making it easy for him to sound somewhat reasonably on these points because they are overstating the scientific case.

It's not an existential threat, not even close. Calling attempts to clarify or nuance what is meant by existential threat "hair-splitting" is a bit disingenuous. Given the gravity of the claim and the consequences thereof, it would seem especially important to be clear about what kind of threats we should be expecting.

Well there's really no alternative I can see -- so you're either wrong or we're dead. — Xtrix

There's lots of possibilities in between we all take drastic action right now or the human race is doomed in a few decades. Maybe civilization manages to adapt. Maybe new technology helps mitigate the worst of the changes. Maybe the doomsday scenarios are worst-case, lower probability outcomes. Maybe all we need is moderate changes to cleaner energy and slightly less consumption with tax incentives in place over the next couple decades, plus some tree planting campaigns and what not.

Maybe trying to push for drastic changes right now is counter productive. For one thing, it's likely to face political backlash and the politicians supporting those changes getting voted out of office in the next election cycle. Even if governments and corporations embraced more radical changes that the public were willing to endure, maybe that would retard technological progress into finding better solutions.

We are talking about predicting how humanity reacts to the climate warming up, not the climate models themselves. That's a whole different ball of wax.

It's not an existential threat, not even close. — ChatteringMonkey

Based on what we understand now, this is true.

How would you reframe the issue to give it a little punch?

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey

Based on what we understand now, this is true.

How would you reframe the issue to give it a little punch? — frank

I'm not great at punchy lines but.... We're degrading the earth at the expense of current and future generations? Probably not punchy enough?

The longer version is that greenhouse gasses warm the earth which will cause a number of problems, for us, and for the rest of biological life and ecosystems which will in turn have effects on us. More floods and heat waves, food and water shortages, more extreme weather, disturbed ecosystems, new pandemics etc etc... This is very unlikely to kill us all or even most of us, but a number of people will die because of it and it will make things generally worse for most.

And this are only the direct consequences of climate change. Imagine what kind of immigration problems Europe will have when it gets really bad in sub-Saharan Africa with its massively rising population. It's already a major political and social problem now, and that could be dwarfed by climate refugees to come. The real danger is that societies that are already under tension now, will collapse under the strains of climate change. And when tensions get high that also increases the chances of wars between nations for resources that have become more scarce. If you lose control over that, the problems could compound...

Greenhouse gasses stay a long time in the atmosphere and are hard to remove, even with foreseeable future technologies. This means that if we don't do enough now and in the coming decades we are essentially condemning future generations to put massive amounts of effort in dealing with it... we're restricting their potential to flourish.

I look at it this way Frank, after a long history of human struggle we are on the verge of finally pulling our shit together somewhat. Coming technological advances, in bio-tech, genetics, AI and what have you, have the potential to define the future course of humanity. If we mess up with how we deal with those we could have some real nasty dystopias on the horizon... I think, especially now, it is of prime importance that we keep our sanity as societies, because the state of our societies will determine how we will handle those. Climate change, if not dealt with properly, has the potential to become a problem we definitely could do without.

I have a simple question to ask. First off the climate change/global warming claims need to be made clear. I recently had a conversation with my brother-in-law and I made a comment about a recent heat-wave and that global warming really is true; he was kind enough to correct me - global warming doesn't necessarily imply heat, it could also manifest as unusual cold weather.

I thought nothing of it until now.

My question: So, those who claim that global warming/climate change is a fact are claiming if it suddenly starts snowing all over the world, temperatures drop below freezing, rivers and lakes in the tropics freeze over, it's all caused by global "warming"? :chin:

Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature over longer periods, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming.

I recently had a conversation with my brother-in-law and I made a comment about a recent heat-wave and that global warming really is true; he was kind enough to correct me - global warming doesn't necessarily imply heat, it could also manifest as unusual cold weather. — TheMadFool

It could locally and temporarily manifest as unusual cold weather, because of the effects of global warming on phenomena like the gulf stream which gives Northern America and Europa a warmer climate then you would expect based solely on latitude.

Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming. — ChatteringMonkey

I was talking about the climate, not the weather - global cooling in the form of worldwide snow, freezing temperatures in (say) the Sahara, and so on. Remember climate change is about extremes - that cuts both ways (h9t or cold). Ergo, global warming can lead to global cooling. Paradox or climate change is a hoax, a well-orchestrated one.

Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming.
— ChatteringMonkey

I was talking about the climate, not the weather - global cooling in the form of worldwide snow, freezing temperatures in (say) the Sahara, and so on. Remember climate change is about extremes - that cuts both ways (h9t or cold). Ergo, global warming can lead to global cooling. Paradox or climate change is a hoax, a well-orchestrated one. — TheMadFool

No it couldn't lead to global cooling, then it would be global cooling instant of global warming.

Extremes are possible, temporarily, but then that's not climate, or locally, but then that's not global.

No it couldn't lead to global cooling — ChatteringMonkey

Why not? All climate-change-is-real believers (what do you call 'em?) talk about is extreme weather. Ergo, if it snowed heavily (6 - 10 ft) all day for a month (that would be weather) all over the earth, it would be because of global warming but such an event will cause long-term global cooling, no? Ice, snow, cools, right?

We could aim to overcome climate change completely.

Sufficient clean energy is available from the molten interior of the earth; that we could decide and agree to solve this problem, and we could solve it. It must be possible to extract energy from magma heated rock given the sophistication of drilling technologies developed by the fossil fuel industry; and assuming so - there is the potential to meet and exceed global energy demand in short order, from a vast, clean, constant source of base load power.

Producing electrical power converted to hydrogen via electrolysis, and compressed; liquified hydrogen contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum, and when burnt produces only water vapour. Shipping liquified hydrogen fuel in tanker ships; to be burnt in existing power stations would produce and distribute clean electricity via exiting grids - and so would work with the larger part of existing energy infrastructures.

Given an effectively limitless surplus of energy to power carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, and recycling, there's no scientific or technological reason why we could not meet and overcome the climate challenge, and secure a sustainable balance between human welfare and a viable ecosystem going forward.

It's just a matter of looking at the science and technology first, and the solution is fairly obvious, and could sustain continued economic growth going forward, such that it does not require action in direct opposition to natural human motives and ideological interests to address. It seems improbable precisely because we are limited by our ideological horizons, forced into a bottleneck of ever tighter regulation and taxation without end or hope! But just beyond, there is a viable solution, and beyond that - a hopeful future!

deleted

No it couldn't lead to global cooling
— ChatteringMonkey

Why not? All climate-change-is-real believers (what do you call 'em?) talk about is extreme weather. Ergo, if it snowed heavily (6 - 10 ft) all day for a month (that would be weather) all over the earth, it would be because of global warming but such an event will cause long-term global cooling, no? Ice, snow, cools, right? — TheMadFool

Extreme weather in the form of cold, for a month, 'globally' probably is very unlikely in a global warming scenario.

And even then it does not cause climate cooling. Climate is an average over years. One month would have an impact on that number sure, a month is a fraction of years after all, but not significantly.

deleted.

It's not an existential threat, not even close. — ChatteringMonkey

Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat!

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat! — tim wood

Come on, put in some effort please. Existential threat is defined as a threat to all human life. It's right there in the article Xtrix linked to. I'm well aware that people will die because of climate change, and that we need to do something about it, I've said so multiple times already in this thread alone.