New ice age for us? That's unlikely. — ssu

It's possible. I don't know the probability. I don't think anyone does.

It's 100% certain it won't happen naturally anytime before the climate crisis of global warming displaces and kills millions.

It's 100% certain it won't happen naturally anytime before the climate crisis of global warming displaces and kills millions. — Benkei

Source?

Oh, I don't know Tate, how about the documents about reglaciation you yourself sourced and when we could expect an ice age at the earliest based on that and then comparing that to the IPCC reports on when we can expects coastal areas to disappear due to rising sea levels?

Do you have any more disingenuous questions or is that it?

No need to be testy. Just to be clear, there are no climatologists who speak with the kind of confidence you display.

250 million people will be directly affected due to rising sea levels by 2100 and that's assuming we can reach the 2030 goals, which it's quite obvious we won't. When's the next ice age expected again?

Climatologists do speak with such confidence, just not in their scientific papers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html

So stop your obfuscation in a misplaced attempt to think you're trying to do science.

When's the next ice age expected again? — Benkei

If you glance at my thread, I posted a paper that says we may have already passed a trigger point for reglaciation. It's the one that says the Anthropocene started about 6000 years ago.

Next up will be a proposed solution to the 100,000 year problem, which was not addressed in any long range model up to now. It suggests that shutdown of the thermohaline circulation has been triggering reglaciation, not just a minima of insolation in the Northern Hemisphere. Since the thermohaline is slowing now, this means reglaciation is in the cards.

Hey, you asked. :grin:

So at least another 2000 years before we really notice anything. As I said, too late to make a difference and therefore it has no place here.

at least another 2000 years before we really notice — Benkei

Could be. Or it could be next year. We don't have a crystal ball.

it is so, we have current observation and enough data of the past 800,000 years to know it ain't going to happen to be relevant for global warming and possibly not at all for the next 100,000. But then that requires you to actually understand the science.

Climatologists do speak with such confidence, just not in their scientific papers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html — Benkei

Paywall restricted.

If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that. — Tate

The trouble is that widening our understanding may lead to some of us having to concede they had no understanding to begin with, and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years.

Being in the middle of crushing heat waves, draughts, and floods all at the same time here in 2021 — Xtrix

Welcome to 2022.

Is it already too late? — Xtrix

No, if everyone acts right now.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact? — Xtrix

No one is acting right now and just now reports are made that the arctic is warming four times faster than predicted.

Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus? — Xtrix

That would require a lot of neoliberals having absolute power to push industries not complying with climate goals.

If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it? — Xtrix

- Global ban on the production of fossil fuel transportation vehicles from 2030 at the latest.
- Global financial support to people buying electric cars. The more effective the car and sustainable production of those cars, the more financial support.
- Global ban on coal, gas, and other fossil fuel power plants.
- Global government investment into battery research and tech to create power storage solutions
- Global government support for homeowners to install battery technology for automatic power storage management.
- Global government investment in the installation of city-wide solar panels on the majority of roofs.
- Global global initiative for Thorium power plants before fusion is solved or solar panels efficiency reaches viable levels.
- Carbon neutral industry changes (like carbon neutral steel production in Sweden)
- Global government limitations on food production and fishing to sustain the ecological balance, mainly coral reef and algae (since they soak up as much CO2 as the Amazons)
- Global limitation on air travel, maybe even customer limitations to restrict km/year traveled by air.
- Global ban on the oil and coal industry lobbying-money getting into governments, i.e fossil fuel industries cannot "bribe" themselves into being safe from restrictions.
- Global government investment in companies who work on sustainable solutions, for example, Tesla.
- Global "green city" architectural requirements in order to plant more trees and plants integrated with city infrastructure and environments.
- Local food production initiatives, including insect farms as a protein source.
- Meat tax that goes straight back to meat production to push sustainable levels of production and lower numbers of animals in the chain. Part of it also goes to lab-grown meat research and development.
- Increased penalty for people starting wildfires, i.e maximum sentence, life in prison. The consequences of such crimes are too severe for the entire world and in areas with drought. It will become an annual problem that will escalate. Governments also need to demand land owners have counter-measures in place, if not, penalties or risk of losing their land.
- Penalize anti-climate-research speech (climate deniers), and classify it the same as hate speech in order to block the spread of misinformation and disinformation (yes, this thing is too serious to warrant any free speech bullshit arguments to protect some uneducated morons who won't even survive to see the consequences of their actions).

To name a few

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our time? — Xtrix

Republicans and similar people in other nations. General conspiracy nutcases. Boomers who are stuck in conservative bullshit and are too fragile to accept change. Millennials who are too occupied with their own narcissism and ego to let anything distract them from upholding a perfect image of a successful life. Gen Z's too hypnotized by TikTok during their development to be able to have a normal working brain that isn't too distracted by dopamine deficiency and the inability to stay on topic for more than 2 seconds.

I would say that the problem isn't people who actively work against fixing this, but the ones who ignore even trying to. Those are the majority and those people could change the world in an instant.

and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years. — Tzeentch

Or a failure to function as a rational person. A rational person does not stick to their guns when the opposite has been proven, because they see through the normal bias others are slaves to.

Or a failure to function as a rational person. A rational person does not stick to their guns when the opposite has been proven, because they see through the normal bias others are slaves to. — Christoffer

It's not irrational to question the prevailing view. It's how we grow our body of knowledge.

It's not irrational to question the prevailing view. It's how we grow out body of knowledge. — Tate

There's a difference between questioning a prevailing view and irrational questioning out of group think and biases, especially if the bias is highly politically driven or based on emotional instability.

The problem in the world today is that too many think their opinion or knowledge matters regardless of how informed that opinion or knowledge is. The narcissism of today has cluttered discussions on any topic, introducing noise of irrelevant bullshit because people think just expressing an opinion is just as valid as expressing an informed opinion. It's the jealousy by common folks towards informed people that have created a world where informed people are regarded as some low-class annoyance and the ignorance rising due to this as people shut their ears off and instead start to believe that their own opinion has the same value as informed people's opinions is seriously damaging to the planet and the quality of life in general.

Since politics always focus on the lowest common denominator we now have a world where expert opinions get ignored and uninformed bullshit gets promoted.

We don't grow a body of knowledge in this environment before we return to a better established hierarchy of knowledge. Where informed people, education, experts, and actual facts are handled with care and dignity. When actual rationality and wisdom are regarded as virtue again.

It's the path of taking adequate epistemic responsibility. Knowing when to shut up and not express an opinion is just as rational and morally responsible as making informed questioning of a broadly accepted idea.

There's a difference between questioning a prevailing view and irrational questioning out of group think and biases, especially if the bias is highly politically driven or based on emotional instability. — Christoffer

I couldn't agree more.

I think the problem is more intractable, given the unpopularity of the viable ameliorations, ("ameliorations" because "solutions" would be too unrealistic at this stage it seems).

I posted this in the "glaciation" thread:

Universal cooperation is a pipe dream. Also the idea that we can quickly de-carbonize is a fantasy it seems. The "political" part of the problem is the promulgation of impossible targets, but also, the unwillingness (due to the perceived unpopularity) to promote the idea that we (in the "developed" nations) should all use much less energy; drive much smaller cars, use public transport, do without air-conditioning unless absolutely necessary, stop traveling overseas, choose locally grown foods etc. — Janus

This explains very clearly the problems involved with trying to de-carbonize rapidly.

Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus? — Xtrix

That would require a lot of neoliberals having absolute power to push industries not complying with climate goals. — Christoffer

Oh oh. Put on your mask when flying through those clouds of sulfuric acid.

Universal cooperation is a pipe dream. Also the idea that we can quickly de-carbonize is a fantasy it seems. The "political" part of the problem is the promulgation of impossible targets, — Janus

I agree. Best to do what we can, and prepare for the inevitable. If I were to be around for the next couple of hundred years I suspect Colorado will become like current day Las Vegas environment, largely vacated as people pack up and move to Canada. Miami may survive as a kind of Venice.

"solutions" would be too unrealistic at this stage it seems — Janus

Agreed, we will still get a world drastically changed then how it was. For example, we will have annual heat waves of upwards of 45 degrees celsius in Europe based on the current progression, but if we fail to mitigate further it could end up being 50-55 degrees as peaks. Such high temperatures will be like someone putting a magnifying glass over the lands and burning a scar through Europe. Not to mention how it will be in places like Iraq, where heat waves already peaks at 50 degrees celsius.

Universal cooperation is a pipe dream. — Janus

Not if there's a collective threat happening. We will not see collaboration until we seriously get to experience the first consequences. We've already seen how a large portion of politicians and the general public have shifted into grasping the magnitude of the dangers of global warming through this summer's heat wave. And with worse and worse heat waves, more drought, more fires, and unstable weather and storms as a follow-up, I think we will see better universal cooperation when climate refugees, food supply energy problems, heat wave deaths, houses destroyed in storms, and so on gets worse. Humanity won't do anything until they have a gun to their head.

The "political" part of the problem is the promulgation of impossible targets, but also, the unwillingness (due to the perceived unpopularity) to promote the idea that we (in the "developed" nations) should all use much less energy — Janus

This is the problem with representative democracy in a time when we have more demagogues than actual politicians. They do anything to keep their power and the public is too stupid, too uneducated or easily fooled by people with power over them to be able to vote for something of actual value and win that over. This is why the general public needs to experience a catastrophe before they would vote for politicians that focus on actual solutions.

Let the people burn and then they might want to fix the problem. :shade:

This explains very clearly the problems involved with trying to de-carbonize rapidly. — Janus

The problem is that innovation doesn't get enough funding. There are teenagers inventing water cheap water filtration systems that were earlier not invented because there wasn't much economic incentive to do so. There is a lot of innovation going on in the energy sector that gets so little funding that they cannot come into volume production or into collaboration with other technologies. All while strategies are formed based on previous volume-produced solutions.

Agreed, we will still get a world drastically changed then how it was. For example, we will have annual heat waves of upwards of 45 degrees celsius in Europe based on the current progression, but if we fail to mitigate further it could end up being 50-55 degrees as peaks. Such high temperatures will be like someone putting a magnifying glass over the lands and burning a scar through Europe. Not to mention how it will be in places like Iraq, where heat waves already peaks at 50 degrees celsius. — Christoffer

But here's the interesting question to everyone.

Yes, it's a problem. But can we cope with it on the short-to-medium time range?

Yes.

And here do note I'm talking about coping with the problem, not solving it. Because that I think we as humanity will do. People should understand the difference between coping and solving something.

I think we can fare better than any people in history before us. Especially in the West we are so prosperous that having to make dramatic changes out of necessity will not collapse our societies. When our environment radically changes around us, we can adapt.

Southern California is one example: Even without climate change, it would be basically a desert environment just as Baja California, but moving rivers has made it what it is now. So if it, thanks to climate change, would go back to an environment like Mexico, could people still live there?

Yes.

Would the society collapse? No.

People live in Mexico. A lot of people do live in environment that basically are or would be deserts.

And this is actually quite a scary thought: even if we really fuck it up with our response to climate change, if we really don't come up with real solutions, we will surely come up with something and it's not the richest nations that are going to hell in handbasket, we will just go where things suck for us. Yet our societies aren't on the verge of collapse with threats of civil war (or those already going on). The real victims are those societies that are there already. We'll cope with our mediocre watered down solutions.

But can we cope with it on the short-to-medium time range? — ssu

Yes. What I've been wondering for decades is whether civilization will survive the next 10,000 years. I feel broken hearted imagining that we're living at the end of an age, but on the bright side, it would give other lifeforms a break.

I think we can fare better than any people in history before us. Especially in the West we are so prosperous that having to make dramatic changes out of necessity will not collapse our societies. When our environment radically changes around us, we can adapt. — ssu

How exactly do you think the problem of climate change came about?

Yes. What I've been wondering for decades is whether civilization will survive the next 10,000 years. I feel broken hearted imagining that we're living at the end of an age, but on the bright side, it would give other lifeforms a break. — Tate

The future for the next 10,000 years isn't our problem. Or to put it correctly, doesn't happen because of just our generations.

How exactly do you think the problem of climate change came about? — Isaac

We understand that our actions do have an effect on the World, @Isaac. How many other living creatures/species have understood that?

To understand that is really important.

The future for the next 10,000 years isn't our problem. Or to put it correctly, doesn't happen because of just our generations — ssu

I don't look at it as a moral challenge. It's about the fate of a species I've come to love.

I don't look at it as a moral challenge. It's about the fate of a species I've come to love. — Tate

Well, just look at what we have done in the last 2000 years. In good and bad. So I guess to worry what will happen to us in the next 10,000 years is a bit grandiose.

Well, just look at what we have done in the last 2000 years. In good and bad. So I guess to worry what will happen to us in the next 10,000 years is a bit grandiose. — ssu

Uh, ok.

We understand that our actions do have an effect on the World, Isaac. How many other living creatures/species have understood that?

To understand that is really important. — ssu

Your talent for for the irrelevant is impressive.

Why are you telling me this?

Coming California megaflood

:fire: Welcome to the Anthropocene! :fire:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/20/world/rivers-lakes-drying-up-drought-climate-cmd-intl/index.html :eyes: :mask: