The Climate Scare: Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious

[Roy]

That we are the MAJOR cause?

post 1970 - yes.

Why only post-1970? Humans have been using fossil fuels and burning down forests for far, far longer.

[Sparko]

I made sure not to buy any coastal properties in the first place. Both my houses are high enough above sea level that they won't be endangered until I'm long gone.

You have two houses? You are one of the rich people that the liberals are coming to lynch and take your money! Good thing you are already in the hills or I would tell you to run for them!

[Starlight]

So the big plan to save the world is to come up with a plan?

It's depressing that what the Paris Agreement does is news to you.

Pretty much the whole point of it is that each country individually comes up with a plan for what they are going to do that meets certain basic criteria, and these plans are shared internationally. Then the scientists can crunch the numbers from all the plans and answer questions like "if everyone follows their proposed plans, what's the level of global warming going to be?" and work out if the plans all need to be stepped up a notch or if they're good enough. And also work out if any country's plan is particularly silly, highly improbable, not actually being followed by them, or far less than their fair share. Then the diplomats meet at regular intervals to decide what they're going to do about countries that aren't pulling their weight, pat themselves on the back if everyone's doing great, or panic if the data shows that countries as a whole aren't following their own plans and/or the scientific data shows that the combined plans even if implemented don't stop global warming by a sufficient amount.

The Paris Agreement is often called a 'framework' because it sets up this basic "each country write a public plan and then everyone meets regularly" framework. It doesn't itself particularly commit any given country to any particular level of achievement.

So what the US could have done, rather than spitting the dummy at the Paris Agreement as a whole, they could have just said "our own country's plan is to do nothing ourselves" and submitted that as their country's plan and then attended the international meetings and bullied other countries into doing more while continuing to choose to do nothing themselves and in general being too big and powerful for the other countries to respond with economic sanctions on the US for its failure to do its fair share. That would have, loosely speaking, complied with the Paris Agreement framework. Instead the US has gone the route of "we hate science, we hate the planet, we hate all other countries, waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, we're out of here!" and chosen to fully abdicate any international leadership and discussion role whatsoever in the ongoing meetings between the 197 countries who have chosen to agree to the Paris framework. Presumably over time certain countries will emerge as diplomatic leaders within this process, and take on increased international leadership roles, and since the US isn't there it won't be the US.

[Starlight]

I'm talking about claims like AOC's "12 years" and predictions which have already failed to pan out like "all arctic ice will be gone by 2013" or "all glaciers will be gone in 5 years" or the like. That's not decades, and if people believe such claims, they should be getting out from under coastal properties ASAP before their property value dwindles to nothing because it's all underwater.

I suspect you're not really interested in the facts, but nonetheless I'm going to note that the 12 year timespan referenced by AOC comes from the international climate change reports and refers to the idea that various parts of the earth's environment will reach a tipping point in about 12 years if human emissions aren't significantly reduced in that timeframe. Once they pass that tipping point, even if humans radically reduce their emissions after that, there will still be serious negative effects for the globe.

One such example is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is a huge mass of ice in Antarctica that is on a downhill slope into the ocean, and it contains enough total ice to significantly raise sea levels. If it were to start slipping off into the ocean and melting, then there would be nothing that could be done to stop it moving, and scientists have put a lot of effort into trying to estimate exactly what it would take to trigger the process by which the whole thing began to slide off into the sea. It wouldn't do so instantly and once it started sliding off would take decades to fully slide off and melt. So the sea levels would not suddenly rise in 12 years times. Rather, the idea is that if sufficient action is not taken within the 12 year window, then irreversible processes are triggered that will have negative effects on human civilizations for decades after that.

So AOC's "12 year" reference is not a prediction that "you will be able to see disaster has happened in 12 years and 1 day when you wake up and look out the window and find your house is now underwater", it's "the scientists are telling us that if we don't take action within the next 12 years, a number of irreversible processes are likely to be triggered which will have negative effects over the decades to follow, and at that point it will be too late for us to act to prevent them". Now that prediction could still be wrong - we might get to 12 years from now and the scientists might say "actually, none of the irreversible processes we were worried about are showing any signs of having been triggered, we now calculate there's another 20 years to act to stop them being triggered" - but its not something the average person will be able to see with their own eyes in 12 years time as to whether or not it has occurred (well, you might be able to see pictures of massive cracks in key antarctic ice sheets or something, but looking out your window won't tell you anything).

So serious sea level rise isn't forecasted to occur on day one after the 12 years is up, it will begin to slowly occur at a tiny rate per year about then and continue to occur for decades after that. So the timeframe for selling sea-adjacent property isn't 12 years, its decades - although its value and insurableness may begin to rapid diminish if after 12 years scientists are able to confirm that one of the irreversible gradual-sea-level-rise triggers have been hit and supply a fairly exact time period for when the house will be under water.

[Tassman]

We will survive (as long as we don't nuke ourselves). We were here 100,000 years ago when the seas were 10 meters higher and it was as warm or warmer than now. Our culture will have to change, our cities will have to move.

“The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives”. “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia”.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

To ignore the scientist’s conclusive warnings or refer mockingly to “Chicken Little” scenarios as per CP, is akin to ignoring a dire prognosis from your medical specialist of certain death unless you change your ways. In short, it’s foolhardy.

[oxmixmudd]

Why only post-1970? Humans have been using fossil fuels and burning down forests for far, far longer.

As i understand it post 1970 is where our contribution becomes the incontrivertable driver.

[oxmixmudd]

“The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives”. “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia”.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

To ignore the scientist’s conclusive warnings or refer mockingly to “Chicken Little” scenarios as per CP, is akin to ignoring a dire prognosis from your medical specialist of certain death unless you change your ways. In short, it’s foolhardy.

Im not ignoring it tassman. I just think you statement about our survival is over the top. And what youve quoted isnt contrary to what I said. What evidence do you have that says humanity will not survive AGW?

jim

[Tassman]

Im not ignoring it tassman. I just think you statement about our survival is over the top. And what youve quoted isnt contrary to what I said. What evidence do you have that says humanity will not survive AGW?

There is a very real chance that humans be the victim of their own mass extinction.

"There are two questions that arise: the first is, OK, just because we’ve survived the loss of X number of species, can we keep going down the same trajectory, or do we eventually imperil the systems that keep people alive? That’s a very big and incredibly serious question. And then there’s another question. Even if we can survive, is that the world you want to live in? Is that the world you want all future generations of humans to live in?

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...eat-extinction

[Roy]

You have two houses? You are one of the rich people that the liberals are coming to lynch and take your money! Good thing you are already in the hills or I would tell you to run for them!

Wellll... one house and one mortgage.

When I changed jobs a few years back it made more economic sense to buy a second house than to rent a room/flat/house near where I was working.

[oxmixmudd]

There is a very real chance that humans be the victim of their own mass extinction.

"There are two questions that arise: the first is, OK, just because we’ve survived the loss of X number of species, can we keep going down the same trajectory, or do we eventually imperil the systems that keep people alive? That’s a very big and incredibly serious question. And then there’s another question. Even if we can survive, is that the world you want to live in? Is that the world you want all future generations of humans to live in?

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...eat-extinction

Ok, that piece is fluff. Lots of assertions, very little data. Can you suggest a source that makes an actual case for the ideas presented that has some basis in fact and not just a sequence of claims and assertions?

Jim

[Sparko]

It's depressing that what the Paris Agreement does is news to you.

Pretty much the whole point of it is that each country individually comes up with a plan for what they are going to do that meets certain basic criteria, and these plans are shared internationally. Then the scientists can crunch the numbers from all the plans and answer questions like "if everyone follows their proposed plans, what's the level of global warming going to be?" and work out if the plans all need to be stepped up a notch or if they're good enough. And also work out if any country's plan is particularly silly, highly improbable, not actually being followed by them, or far less than their fair share. Then the diplomats meet at regular intervals to decide what they're going to do about countries that aren't pulling their weight, pat themselves on the back if everyone's doing great, or panic if the data shows that countries as a whole aren't following their own plans and/or the scientific data shows that the combined plans even if implemented don't stop global warming by a sufficient amount.

The Paris Agreement is often called a 'framework' because it sets up this basic "each country write a public plan and then everyone meets regularly" framework. It doesn't itself particularly commit any given country to any particular level of achievement.

So what the US could have done, rather than spitting the dummy at the Paris Agreement as a whole, they could have just said "our own country's plan is to do nothing ourselves" and submitted that as their country's plan and then attended the international meetings and bullied other countries into doing more while continuing to choose to do nothing themselves and in general being too big and powerful for the other countries to respond with economic sanctions on the US for its failure to do its fair share. That would have, loosely speaking, complied with the Paris Agreement framework. Instead the US has gone the route of "we hate science, we hate the planet, we hate all other countries, waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, we're out of here!" and chosen to fully abdicate any international leadership and discussion role whatsoever in the ongoing meetings between the 197 countries who have chosen to agree to the Paris framework. Presumably over time certain countries will emerge as diplomatic leaders within this process, and take on increased international leadership roles, and since the US isn't there it won't be the US.

So yes, the great plan is to come up with a plan. Amazing insight.

[Sparko]

As i understand it post 1970 is where our contribution becomes the incontrivertable driver.

That was about when Soylent Green came out!

[Starlight]

So yes, the great plan is to come up with a plan.

Making America's decision to not participate in the lets-get-a-plan-to-save-the-world joint effort all the more damning.

It wasn't like America was being asked to do anything unreasonable. It wasn't like liberals were setting some sort of ideological proposal for people living in hobbit holes. It was pretty much: "Please write a plan, any plan, that you feel is appropriate for your country". Even that was too much for Trump. Probably because he's incapable of writing.

[Tassman]

So yes, the great plan is to come up with a plan. Amazing insight.

So what exactly is the plan Trump and co are developing by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and appointing coal lobbyist Andrew R. Wheeler as head of the EPA?