AvantHiatus

You are disagreeing with the findings of the IPCC as my views are synonymous with that line of thinking. That we have an emergent climate crisis that requires a response. Unfortunately, the IPCC does a bad job of extrapolating on outcomes and to them, it's just a number with no emotional meaning or backstory. A 3.5C rise by 2100 guarantees a global extinction level in the range of 25-50% when you factor in human land use and habitat restriction/movement. That temperature rise is like going from Ice Age to Eemian Interglacial in 150 years but from a much warmer state. That's nutty and unprecedented, not to mention unacceptable. Your idea of a fact must be something that has already 'concretely' happened. The true facts that are relevant reside in the fast and slow feedback processes. Albedo decrease/Arctic tipping points/GHG saturation and Ocean Heat Content/Water Vapor increase are the hard facts that guarantee the future that to you, appears to be hyperbolic and not supported by fact. What you say is true but it is disingenuous and not posted in good faith. The only way to avoid said outcomes is to act in a precautionary manner before the "facts" take effect. Not to mention, the warming process is slow yet non-linear occuring over a extended human lifetime. It is perfectly wired to kill us. In the future, assuming we survive, people will call this time the 'Carbon Implosion Era' or something noteworthy.

All of the above is relevant but it is simply immoral (or unethical?) to act as if the science is not settled in a way we care about (cause and effects upon the human experience). Trying to say 1+1 thus alarmism is irrelevant doesn't really serve any purpose and you claim this forum is science based but climate change is not a science-based issue anymore. It's a core problem that intersects every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave. Whether you intended or not, you have casted doubt on the necessity of climate change policy and activism while giving deniers freedom to continue their lifestyle and to spread disinformation. I am just here to understand the nature of climate denial, and the emotional rejection of the data. I can meet deniers in the middle and they should voice their concerns especially related to carbon taxes and middle class dynamics. I share these concerns and don't want a global oligarchy in the first world. I just know that AGW is real and a strong response is needed. As far as I am concerned, I am well versed on the science of greenhouse warming as well and have cited papers many times before on here. Only in the last 3 years have we become aware of climate tipping points as a real possibility.

In the end, you have a clear preference for rationalism vs subjectivity and the human experience. That is the only thing of value I can gather from this exchange. As an individual, you should aim to be rational while also considering the emotional fallout of your actions. It's called emotional intelligence and critical thinking. As you mentioned previously, the powers that be are governed by two extremes (deniers vs alarmism). I am just saying that I am not an alarmist, but I am just critically reacting to the data that is coming in. I don't think you monitor the climate system in real time and are capable of identifying these warning signals due to the worst form of tunnel vision. It is not good to react after the fact with a tombstone mentality, especially considering the slow-burn hysteresis dynamics of climate change.

So fossil fuels were not the cheapest source of energy in the last 20 years? I think you are trying to convince yourself otherwise, you are emotionally weak and behind the times intellectually. Classic GenX archetype. Figured you would want to break free of generational stereotypes. I would appreciate this right now.

You are still a troll and nothing will change that.

I bet my life's savings that my current position would be considered conservative or denier-esque in 2050. The deniers outnumber the alarmists 3:1, to say otherwise would a blatant lie. Alarmism is not why we are in our predicament, fossil fuels were simply the cheapest source of energy. If anything, the only way to overcome an economy-based incentive is to use an emotional methodology or religion-like structure. You can see how radicalism is now rampant in the world. ISIS doesn't care about the economy. We aren't doing enough. The reason why I ratchet it up because I know we don't have much time left. Sitting around debating the science on a settled topic is useless. I don't see anyone debating the lighter nuance of climate science such as the range of ECS. The best we could get was anywhere between 1.5-3.5C warming per doubling. However, this range guarantees a need for universal concern and action no matter what side of the aisle you stand. I hope to see this whole situation transition into a less taboo environment. 20 years later, supporting a fossil fuel driven economy will be equivalent to asserting that smoking is good for your health.

It's just a matter of figuring out if the carrying capacity of the Earth is really 8 billion people and if it is lower during the Greenhouse Earth mode.

There will be large die-offs due to climate change, probably a total wipeout of the third world as organized countries and mass-migration from the tropics to northern countries. Nature will eliminate the problem for us if we choose not to act. You decide what you want your legacy to be. You can't escape that conclusion, you can either force people to be responsible and recouple your loss, or let them be victims of our lifestyle over the past 150 years.

wut....

By product of having a hedonistic society. I'm sure growing up into a mature adult, you have realized that true peace of mind only comes from inside. Materialism leads progressively to downfall at every turn. In the end, the powers that created western civilization are to blame, and this goes way back to pre-roman times. On the flipside, eastern civilization is not perfect. We have just been using old world belief systems and this is causing problems. Technology is advancing too fast.

I guess we are going againist the grain of evolution. I don't buy it, the solution is simple and by creating a environment which precludes the possibility of overshoot, you eliminate the threat. In other words, we should have stayed in small tribes. A clever human community can do this while still holding onto advanced technology. We are just another juncture in which the species is tested and brought to the edge. If it's possible for us to see the big picture, anyone can do it and respond to long term threats. We need a massively aware population, no more BS, no more lies. Yes, there will be no long-term winners. It's the wrong way to conduct a civilization entirely, and the population would need to fall back in order to sustain anarchistic lifestyle. We need to somehow escape to the other side without losing our technological advancement. If not, you can prepare for nothing short of our species going extinct. It's easy to blame biology on the current situation but our current configuration is a relatively recent phenomenon. The true human mode is completely sustainable.

Now would be the time for progressives to come together with libertarians if there is any chance of overthrowing this evil oligarchy. The above is not acceptable, and it's likely you will not be a winner if Big Oil gets their way. Thanks for revealing the truth for all to see tho. You can't get more evil than this, methodically planned in cold blood. Much is more at stake, this agenda is suicidal and goes againist what America has always stood for.

0.5-0.8C additional warming is locked in already if we stopped emitting. The Faustian bargain will become dangerous and life-threatening by 2030, as the aerosol forcing goes away when we finally succeed in leaving the BAU situation. The future is now, imo. We must have global solutions now or geo-engineering will be needed, which has its own caveats and economic liability. Civilization as it is structured now cannot exist in the transition mode between icehouse and greehouse Earth and you risk drowning 35% of the world's GDP in rapid SLR over short-timescales (50-200 years). There is no going back from that, sorrys.

Enormous mounds of methane found under the Arctic sea: Underwater pingos may reveal 'worrying' clues about climate change http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3325230/Enormous-mounds-methane-Arctic-sea-Underwater-pingos-reveal-clues-climate-change.html

The western world buys their products, encouraging the trend. I think we are still highly responsible even if our share is relatively smaller. More importantly, the industrial revolution began in Europe. As far as I can see, the ball is in everyone's court.

The steepest decline coincides with the recession, don't be fooled. Much larger cuts are needed without breaking stuff.

It's only a question of whether we hit tipping points at 1.25C vs 2.00C. A sudden meltdown of a portion of Greenland could occur this decade. At the rate of warming, AMOC collapse is not fast enough to stop the retreat.

I've never seen him this mad before. Now we know not to piss off James Hansen and to follow his advice.

Collapsing Greenland glacier could raise sea levels by half a metre, say scientists http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/collapsing-greenland-glacier-could-raise-sea-levels-by-half-a-metre-say-scientists?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience

Solar has been a shadey renewable for sometime, but the carbon investment needed to build a large solar grid is not nearly as large as the nuclear footprint. What we need is victory by a thousand cuts if we want to survive the climate crisis as a functioning civilization. Safe to say human extinction is off the table save for all the very worst scenarios which compromise 10% of the suite. Regardless, altering precipitation patterns with widespread solar or geoengineering could be bad news bears and worse in the long-run. I strongly advocate for carbon capture scaled down to all vehicles and as many sources as possible rather than wind and solar. A combination of bio-char and aggressive reforestation would perhaps save us from sliding into the greenhouse earth mode permanently. (on time scales relevant to humanity) Deep in the future, assuming functioning civilization continues, we will be able to tap into the fantasy energy technology outlined by the IPCC, which would be infinite with no draw-down. We live in interesting times.