Uh-oh, a mini ice age is coming

[Jaskalas]

IPCC is taking about trying to stay at a 2C rise this century? Bshole said we'd be better off with CO2 levels 10x what they are now and temps 15C higher. Because back in the Cambrian there was massive biodiversity.

Are you jumping on his band wagon too? That a massive change like that would be beneficial to us?

CO2 level of 4,000 ppm? I'd like us to take serious action by 1,000, and absolute action by 2,000. As a worst case scenario. If things go "according to plan" for my more positive scenario... well it's hard to imagine where we'd stop. Hopefully in the ballpark of 800ppm - but there's no telling how quickly or possible it is to get the entire rest of the planet on board.

Problem is we'll not see my positive scenario. Nuclear is not being widely developed today, and it really needs to be done yesterday - without delay. We'd be lucky to push legislation to start the process within a decade.

But I digress, why are you deflecting from the idea that 400ppm is going to flood our coastlines? If not 400, then surely at whatever number we actually CAN stop at. The coastal cities are doomed no matter what action we take. Surely you recognize this, and understand how foolish it is to weigh that into the cost of inaction when no action can stop it.

That's my contention here.

 

[xBiffx]

CO2 level of 4,000 ppm? I'd like us to take serious action by 1,000, and absolute action by 2,000.

I would agree if you someone would show me how 1,000 or 2,000 or 4,000 are going to negatively effect us. Also would be helpful to see how we think we can reverse it.

Until then I'd like to abstain from action.

 

[bshole]

Warming is awesome for life!

Thank you for that. I watched the video up until the point they showed the extinction events. What I noticed from your own video is that EVERY single extinction event happened during or at the trough of a massive cooling trend. Not a single extinction event during a warming trend in the entire 4 billion geologic record. Once again. this is from the video that YOU provided. Given the data YOU provided that ALL extinction events happen during cooling trends and NO extinction events happen during warming trends, why are you so willing to ignore the evidence? Because a "scientist" tells you that the precautionary principle (based on primitive and religious fear) trumps historic data? That is weaksauce brah!

Man is causing massive extinctions right now and it hasn't a damned thing to do with the climate. You know this and I know this. If you are really concerned about extinctions, your number one priority should be habitat protection NOT BUILDING WINDMILLS!!

 

[BurnItDwn]

I would agree if you someone would show me how 1,000 or 2,000 or 4,000 are going to negatively effect us. Also would be helpful to see how we think we can reverse it.

Until then I'd like to abstain from action.

You are suggesting "we dont know how much damage it will do, so fuck it, who cares, clean it up later if we need to"

How well has that worked out in the past?

Is that really a good plan?

It is the laziest plan possible, yes, absolutely, but, is it not worth at least a little bit of effort? I'd like to think that increases in temp and co2 means more plants grow, which then reduce the c02 and put oxygen back into the air at a greater rate, but, we simply dont know.

I think these PPM limits are simply cautious limits to try to minimize fucking over our future generation humans.

 

[werepossum]

CO2 level of 4,000 ppm? I'd like us to take serious action by 1,000, and absolute action by 2,000. As a worst case scenario. If things go "according to plan" for my more positive scenario... well it's hard to imagine where we'd stop. Hopefully in the ballpark of 800ppm - but there's no telling how quickly or possible it is to get the entire rest of the planet on board.

Problem is we'll not see my positive scenario. Nuclear is not being widely developed today, and it really needs to be done yesterday - without delay. We'd be lucky to push legislation to start the process within a decade.

But I digress, why are you deflecting from the idea that 400ppm is going to flood our coastlines? If not 400, then surely at whatever number we actually CAN stop at. The coastal cities are doomed no matter what action we take. Surely you recognize this, and understand how foolish it is to weigh that into the cost of inaction when no action can stop it.

That's my contention here.

Well said. This is why I don't think we should be doing unaffordable things, we should be doing science to make desirable things affordable. If solar cells are affordable then the whole world will embrace them; if they are an economic albatross around our necks, we hurt only ourselves by adopting them, as production shifts to nations that have not shot themselves in the foot. Same with nuclear. Another part of that making things affordable though is subsidizing clean alternative energy. Currently solar cells are not economically feasible unless one can get some of someone else's money to buy them, but they are getting closer, and the higher our utilization the more money gets spent on R&D and the cheaper they get for unit output. Another part is regulation; if Energy Star efficiency standards are mandatory then manufacturers must embrace them, and thus divert resources into meeting those standards as economically as possible. (If we were politically smarter, we would allow importing only from nations that adopt those same standards for domestic consumption.)

Virtually everything that is economically feasible today was once not economically feasible. It's largely a function of ongoing progress combined with the market and/or government driving economic feasibility.

 

[sandorski]

Thank you for that. I watched the video up until the point they showed the extinction events. What I noticed from your own video is that EVERY single extinction event happened during or at the trough of a massive cooling trend. Not a single extinction event during a warming trend in the entire 4 billion geologic record. Once again. this is from the video that YOU provided. Given the data YOU provided that ALL extinction events happen during cooling trends and NO extinction events happen during warming trends, why are you so willing to ignore the evidence? Because a "scientist" tells you that the precautionary principle (based on primitive and religious fear) trumps historic data? That is weaksauce brah!

Man is causing massive extinctions right now and it hasn't a damned thing to do with the climate. You know this and I know this. If you are really concerned about extinctions, your number one priority should be habitat protection NOT BUILDING WINDMILLS!!

You quit watching it too soon. Warming leads to Extinction as well.