3 ms·

You're the one sticking your head in the sand. You act as though _we have a choice_ about how to continue past global warming. Do you know about methane produc

by 3am 13y ago

You're the one sticking your head in the sand. You act as though _we have a choice_ about how to continue past global warming. Do you know about methane production from thawing permafrost or melting subsea clathrate deposits? God is my witness, this has shades of Steve Jobs going vegan to try to treat his pancreatic cancer. Human civilization as we know it is on the edge of an existential crisis, and action on it is being postponed by a small group of extremely wealthy individuals because they want to become more wealthy. That is it, period. Look at where the anti-global warming money comes from. If you think I'm being 'hysterical' then by all means tell me: 1) how we plan on moving the populations and infrastructure built by the sea when sea levels rise 25+ feet when the Greenland ice sheet melts. 2) how we plan on feeding the world when temperatures render the American midwest to warm for wheat and corn production. Same for the bread/rice baskets in China, Ukraine, Africa. 3) how do you think the economy will be affected by #1 and #2. how do we deal with it. I think that a good percentage just assume they'll be one of the 1-in-4 to survive the next century. Sorry if that is too pessimistic for you. EDIT: And right on cue, it's flagged off the front page. Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt.

glenra 13y ago
(1) sea levels aren't going to rise noticeably in just a day or a year or a decade. If they rise a lot over a century or more, we'll just gradually tend to move inland over time. As old buildings need to be replaced anyway on that timescale we'll build new ones further inland. (2) Even the IPCC says the next 1-3 degrees of warming will improve agricultural productivity. So if feeding the world is the priority we don't want to stop warming now even if we could - we should wait for at least another degree or two. In a warmer world you get longer growing seasons in the places that are most productive today for food crops, and in a more CO2-rich world timber forestry becomes much more productive near the equator due to CO2 fertilization. So for at least the next 50-100 years, warming is a boon. A good thing. That gives us at least 50-100 years to check our predictions and figure out what, if anything, we need to do next. (Which is long enough that it's ridiculous to assume current trends will continue, but it can't hurt much to think about it.)

by 3am 13y ago

glenra 13y ago

(1) sea levels aren't going to rise noticeably in just a day or a year or a decade. If they rise a lot over a century or more, we'll just gradually tend to move inland over time. As old buildings need to be replaced anyway on that timescale we'll build new ones further inland. (2) Even the IPCC says the next 1-3 degrees of warming will improve agricultural productivity. So if feeding the world is the priority we don't want to stop warming now even if we could - we should wait for at least another degree or two. In a warmer world you get longer growing seasons in the places that are most productive today for food crops, and in a more CO2-rich world timber forestry becomes much more productive near the equator due to CO2 fertilization. So for at least the next 50-100 years, warming is a boon. A good thing. That gives us at least 50-100 years to check our predictions and figure out what, if anything, we need to do next. (Which is long enough that it's ridiculous to assume current trends will continue, but it can't hurt much to think about it.)