Or are we only allowed to talk about the negative consequences of Climate Change? — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes. "But did you think of this!" is pretty much off topic because, like any natural phenomena, there will be many things that relate to it -- we can talk about the effects of climate change on window prices in Paris, and prattle on forever on what is pretty much not the topic while appearing to be addressing the topic.

When tundra thaws, it becomes soft and squishy and will produce tons and tons of methane which will add to global warming.

Millions if not billions of tons of methane. This is one of the tipping points, it’s already well under way.

Hold up!

If you want to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of climate change, this could mean that you are accepting that climate change is an issue that actually exists. I am addressing you with this because in the few conversations we had (when we discussed Valencia's flood), it seemed to me that you were in denial of climate change.

Could you please provide a link to where this claim is made? — Agree-to-Disagree

That would be my fecund mind. I thought it was obvious that I was joking.

Millions if not billions of tons of methane. This is one of the tipping points, it’s already well under way. — Punshhh

Absolutely!

That would be my fecund mind. I thought it was obviously a joke. — BC

I do find that people who are alarmed about climate change make a lot of "jokes" which can't be backed up with evidence.

Is this a bot?

So, you are not a denier of climate change. You actually believe it exists and attribute the consequences to human actions (i.e., the increase in CO2 level), but I guess you are not an alarmist.

You might think some people are just alarmist about climate change, whilst the latter also can have its advantages, but our worrying about the situation and the uncertainty of the future can't let us see it.

So there are two kinds of groups here: when temperatures increase with climate change and poles will defrost, some would see it as catastrophic, but @Agree-to-Disagree would say: "hey, arable lands will be suitable in Russia, and people will not die of extreme cold!"

Are you saying that you want this thread to only consist of "wailing and gnashing of teeth" about climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree

I want this thread to consist of less trolling. After your first attempt I decided it was important to have a public record to refer to. From here out I'll be deleting comments related to how tundra will become arable, how cold kills, or other unrelated trivia that basically distracts from the topic at hand in order to ignore what's being talked about.

From here out I'll be deleting comments related to how tundra will become arable, — Moliere

Agriculture is a big part of the OP isn't it?

Agriculture is a big part of the OP isn't it? — frank

Sure.

Looking for silver lining in order to say that global warming is good, actually, is not.

There is nothing good about global warming, in this thread.

but I guess you are not an alarmist — javi2541997

You are correct, I am not an alarmist.

I believe in climate change but I don't believe that it will be as bad as many people claim. You may have heard the phrase "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on". People who are pessimistic about climate change blame climate change for every bad thing that happens. I can only debate one issue at a time.

It seems to me that many people who are pessimistic about climate change are only aware of recent history. They don't bother looking further back in time because they just want to believe the worst. Have a look at this post about North American boreal forests burning much more 150 years ago than they do today. This contradicts the common beliefs held about fires in North American boreal forests.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/15317/agree-to-disagree

History is important. If you don't know history it is as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up on it. — Howard Zinn

Looking for silver lining in order to say that global warming is good, actually, is not. — Moliere

The comment had been made that there will be less arable land. Surely it's appropriate to talk about what the science behind that says? Or is that approach not in keeping with the spirit of the OP?

Surely it's appropriate to talk about what the science behind that says? Or is that approach not in keeping with the spirit of the OP? — frank

Yes it is.

In order that I might have a rule to point to the rule is -- there is nothing good about climate change.

So comments of the form "Have you considered that this might lead to a positive thing?" are what are off topic.

In order that I might have a rule to point to the rule is -- there is nothing good about climate change. — Moliere

That's actually an anti-scientific approach. Worse than asking silly questions, really.

That's actually an anti-scientific approach. Worse than asking silly questions, really. — frank

alas, such is the nature of forum discussions. The proper scientific discussion gets published -- we get to comment on it.

So another climate thread degenerated into a argument about whether idiots should be allowed to spam and derail discussion.

I still applaud your effort @Moliere.

Heh. Yes.

But, as I said, now that we have the record, no more.

That poster is a troll, or a bot. That’s what the issue is. I gave up replying, it just sets your head spinning.

That poster is a troll, or a bot. That’s what the issue is. I gave up replying, it just sets your head spinning. — Punshhh

Yes. But I think the reason we're focusing on him is that without him we have an echo chamber. I guess that's what some people want. Peace out. :cool:

People who are pessimistic about climate change blame climate change for every bad thing that happens. I can only debate one issue at a time. — Agree-to-Disagree

I understand your position, but I think you should also understand why people are pessimistic.

I think there are good examples of that. There were catastrophic natural disasters in Southeast Asian countries (like the Philippines or near the coasts of the Bay of Bengal); hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, floods, etc. in recent times.

Sadly, those nations are very poor and undeveloped. Each natural disaster forces the population to move; they suffer from scarcity, and the public budget is not enough to face those expenses, so the government asks for an international loan, making the currency undervalued. In conclusion, if the Philippines and Bangladesh are already poor, a natural disaster (like a flooding) makes them poorer.

We can say that those events only happen each time. But science is showing us that they are occurring more frequently. One of the main causes of having deadly floods is due to the impact of climate change in countries like Bangladesh or Pakistan. So, in my opinion, I understand why people are negative towards this topic. If you think deeply on it, there are more disadvantages than advantages in experiencing a change in the climate of the territory you are living in.

This is interesting: During the period 1901 to 1975, the highest annual rainfall as recorded was 327 percent of the normal in 1917. The lowest annual rainfall amounting to only 34 percent of the normal was recorded in 1920.

It is a 2011 research. But now, checking the same zone (Sirsa, India) they say: In March 2025, the rainfall in Sirsa was 0.300 mm, which was an increase from the previous month.
In April 2021, the rainfall in Sirsa reached an all-time high of 12.600 mm.

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/india/rainfall-by-district/rainfall-haryana-sirsa-normal

I think it is comprehensible why people are pessimistic about the effects of climate change.

We are not mere individuals; we are a community of the willing. I claim that making the argument is the first and most important act. Here is the economic argument, which I already posted elsewhere.

A new report, commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce, estimates that climate-related extreme weather events have cost the global economy more than $2 trillion over the past decade.
https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/new-report-extreme-weather-events-cost-economy-2-trillion-over-the-last-decade/

If global warming is allowed to reach 3°C by 2100 from pre-industrial levels, cumulative economic output could be reduced by 15% to 34%, the report says, while investing 1% to 2% of cumulative GDP in mitigation and adaptation to limit warming to 2°C from pre-industrial levels would reduce economic damage to just 2% to 4%.

“Rapid and sustained investments in mitigation and adaptation will minimise the economic damages and come with a high return,” says the Executive Summary. “Mitigation slows global warming by cutting emissions; adaptation reduces vulnerability to the physical impacts of climate change. Investments in both must rise significantly by 2050 – 9-fold for mitigation and 13-fold for adaptation. We estimate that the total investment required equals 1% to 2% of cumulative economic output to 2100.
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2025/new-report-from-bcg-and-cambridge-on-climate-change-investment/

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/investing-in-climate-action

The latter numbers are of course estimates, based on the somewhat optimistic forecasts of the IPCC
and interpreted by economists. But the former are more solidly founded in actuarial accounting.

These reports are already a year old, and the climate has not improved. This is particularly bad news because ordinarily, we would be in a cooling part of the El Niño/La Niña cycle.

The problem I have with the argument is that it is made from the perspective of the world, while economic decisions are made by countries and companies.

Say some country would want to make the mitigation efforts of 1 to 2 procent of GDP per year. It will only see return on that investment of avoiding climate change effects if everybody, or at least a good majority of countries, makes those investments too. And since countries are permanently locked in geopolitical competition, the country investing a part of its GDP will be at a disadvantage because it has less GDP to spend on other things.

The first thing that needs to be dealt with is this collective action problem, because otherwise it does not make sense for individual countries or companies.

I need to introduce to some people here, the notion of "social collapse". There are 'preppers' out there getting ready for it. There are billionaires buying estates in out of the way places. There are wise academics researching past collapses, and trying to learn lessons. And here is one:

How we could survive in a post‑collapse world



One of the things that concern scientists about the current climate crisis is the incredible speed of it, which @Banno mentioned above. Animals with legs or wings or maybe even slime trails can probably keep up with the movement pole-wards of their accustomed temperature zone. However forests can only move the distance they can project their seed per however many years it takes for a seed to become a fertile tree. There are pioneer species that can move much faster - berries that are eaten by birds, and so on. So there is potential for humans to assist the movement of flora.

The situation for the oceans is more difficult, although one might imagine it easy enough for fish to migrate. Unfortunately, the warming of the sea surface leads to stratification, and because there is less mixing, nutrients are reduced, phytoplankton are also reduced. Phytoplankton absorb CO2 and produce oxygen providing both food and oxygen to fish. Large parts of the oceans are becoming almost sterile.
https://news.ucar.edu/132759/climate-change-creating-significantly-more-stratified-ocean-new-study-finds

I never liked fish much anyway. But a lot of people depend on fish.

So far, most comments here have focussed on what individuals can do to adapt to what is coming. One possibility seems to have been overlooked:— One can die.

The first thing that needs to be dealt with is this collective action problem, because otherwise it does not make sense for individual countries or companies. — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma. Prisoners need some moral fibre to avoid the worst of all possible worlds. Your not liking the argument doesn't really change anything. Solidarity is the answer; solidarity in life, or else in death.

An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’

Prisoners need some moral fibre to avoid the worst of all possible worlds. Your not liking the argument doesn't really change anything. Solidarity is the answer; solidarity in life, or else in death. — unenlightened

It has little to do with me liking it or not, the argument just doesn't cut it for those that need to take the decisions that matter.

Goverments are not going to make the leap out of a sense of solidarity, because geo-politics is typically not a very moral business.

Some kind of enforcable global deal needs to be made between the powers that be.

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/environment/climate-change/climate-change-impacts-agriculture

The comment had been made that there will be less arable land. Surely it's appropriate to talk about what the science behind that says? Or is that approach not in keeping with the spirit of the OP? — frank

Yes, and it has been talked about. Need more?
https://futurism.com/the-byte/climate-change-drying-rivers
https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120315966
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2022/november/shifting-frontiers-mapping-africas-agricultural-land-under-a-future-climate
The great green wall project to hold back the Sahara was going quite well... until Trump.

Russia and Canada are not improving, either.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/climate-change-will-reshape-russia
https://press.un.org/en/2019/gaef3519.doc.htm

OK?

Did you know about that? — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes.

Have you learnt anything?

No.
Can you show the relevance of groundwater to the ability of tundra to grow food crops?
Can you show the relevance of 200-year-old forest fires to our present desperate need to capture carbon, rather than emit more carbon?
Or, really, any relevance to climate change at all?
No, climate change is not good news for anybody.

One can die — unenlightened

I'm working on it.

Of course we need collective action which has to begin here and there without evidence that everyone else will join in. It has begun and is accumulating. Some states, some utility companies, commit to low carbon electrical generation. Some others don't, some others do. But then it becomes apparent that wind and solar are actually cheaper than fossil fuels. And here and there other states, other utility companies order up some turbines and solar farms. Faster change would be better, of course.

How we could survive in a post‑collapse world — unenlightened

So, here and there some individuals and communities survive -- probably more because they were lucky than because they pivoted, adapted, and adjusted continually. The title is too optimistic. It should be "How we might POSSIBLY survive in a post-collapse world, but don't bet on it".

Or maybe I'm pessimistic because I'm old and all the pivoting, adjusting, and adapting that is called for sounds absolutely exhausting.

Per your link:

"Agriculture is very sensitive to weather and climate.4 It also relies heavily on land, water, and other natural resources that climate affects.5 While climate changes (such as in temperature, precipitation, and frost timing) could lengthen the growing season or allow different crops to be grown in some regions,6 it will also make agricultural practices more difficult in others.

"The effects of climate change on agriculture will depend on the rate and severity of the change, as well as the degree to which farmers and ranchers can adapt."

With any long predictions we have to choose starting assumptions like how much CO2 will have been emitted during the chosen timeframe. Then we need a computer model (or two).

Armchair climatology is where we get genius insights like the fact that CO2 is good for plants. Let's try to avoid being just like the idiots we criticize.

Deals are made to be broken. The enforcement of the prisoner's dilemma always leads to the worst result, not the best. there is no solution except to be moral and unselfish at government level - or we can (nearly) all die, of course.