That's not true. I provided two citations in spite of the fact that my knowledge is primarily from textbooks. — Tate

You provided one citation of an article investigating the natural 100 000 year cycle (in the past) and the mechanism of glacial retreat, which does not have anything to do with climate change today which is not caused by orbital mechanics but a radical increase in man-made CO2 emissions.

The next "citation" you offer is a wikipedia "failed verification" tag to a statement that, again, has no relevance to the discussion if it was true or false, did not contradict what you said it was contradicting, and does lend weight to any position in the thread whatsoever.

That's just not true. I've explained that several times now — Tate

That's what you're statements, like an ice age is expected in the next few hundred years, imply.

Your whole current argument is that there is some doubt as to the next ice age, that human CO2 has not completely disrupted the natural cycle, or then there is some doubt about that. Read your own statements.

Obviously, if the earth may actually cool anyways and the current warming is transitory, that implies global warming is a lot smaller problem than essentially the entire climatology community have concluded.

Essentially all your statements, either about the ice age, or claiming gaps in knowledge (which only matter in the context of this discussion if the uncertainty would change a decision, of which there are no candidates), such as

There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple. — Tate

Or take your statement:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

What other interpretation of this statement is possible than implying interlocutors discussing the catastrophic consequences of climate change do not know we are "in an ice age" which has the connotation of being cold rather than hot.

Likewise, by being derogatory in this matter, that participants do not have an even basic knowledge of the subject (while predicting an ice age will likely, or even potentially, start in a few centuries), that their statements can therefore be dismissed.

We both agree that the planet would normally be heading towards reglatiation
— boethius

Thank you. — Tate

Where we disagree is that you claim this natural pattern will continue anyways, or there is some serious doubt as to the effect of our CO2 emissions:

For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.

We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple. — Tate

We not only know that our current CO2 emissions will delay reglaciation by upwards of 500 000 years or more, but we also know that CO2 emissions are pushing us out of the current climate paradigm altogether, towards an ice-free planet.

There are always more details that can be modelled, no predictive model is as complete as the natural system being modelled (this is true for all models).

What matters is the confidence of the predictions that can be made with current knowledge and modelling, and then risk assessment.

The risks are intolerably high ... which you seem to agree with.

It would probably be prudent to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, like completely. — Tate

So, it's not clear what you're even disagreeing with or what point you are trying to make. If you want to just discuss the physics of the climate and get into nuances that have no relevance to this particular discussion, then there are science and physics forums for that.

You seem to just want to make vague statements that imply global warming is not a problem, might get magically solved, or scientists "don't know everything", to soften the blow, such as we're going towards an ice age in the next few centuries (sounds the opposite of warming! god be praised!), but then just backtrack everything to actually have been completely meaningless and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

That's not good faith discussion and deserves no respect.

Where you do make statements that have a baring on the discussion, such as "We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway," they are simply false.

It's supposed to follow from the portion that failed verification. — Tate

What failed verification is this:

More recent work suggests that orbital variations should gradually increase 65° N summer insolation over the next 25,000 years.[failed verification][failed verification] — Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

Which neither you nor I are claiming.

We both agree that the planet would normally be heading towards reglatiation (I wouldn't say next few centuries, but going towards that).

The issue at hand is the effect of human interference; in particular dumping billions of tons of carbon every year into the atmosphere and carbon cycle that would not otherwise get there, resulting in higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than any point in the last millions of years.

Also nothing relevant can be inferred from this statement about insolation anyways (it does not in any-case comment on the state of the climate system as a whole, which is what we're discussing), even if it was true (which, my guess, is there is some truthiness to it, and it comes from misreading an article discussing some subtle orbital effect that, in itself, increases insolation but is minuscule compared to the major orbital mechanics that will be decreasing overall insolation; and then someone dropped in "aha, insolation will be increasing" without citation ... and so makes sense it fails verification).

The statement that "failed verification" (which in wikipedia is only a tag to represent missing sources, which maybe provided by the author of the statement; it is not a tag that means "this statement is false" and has no argumentative use in that roll), does not remotely do what you are claiming, in contradicting:

In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after. — Ice age

The Wikipedia article is wrong. The same information shows up in the article on the Milankovitch cycle and it's superscripted with "verification failed". — Tate

Maybe cite what you're talking about, but I'm happy to do it for you:

More recent work suggests that orbital variations should gradually increase 65° N summer insolation over the next 25,000 years.[failed verification][failed verification] — Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

The statement you cite (I assume ... because you don't actually cite it) that "failed verification" does not contradict the wikipedia statement on the Ice Age page you say it contradicts.

It's a statement that doesn't really infer anything (just "suggesting" something without any predictive value on the whole system; one factor among many, if it is even vaguely representing something true, which "failed verification" may "suggest" it isn't) ... certainly not about events in the next few centuries which is the point under discussion.

Indeed, right after this statement that "fails verification", the same information I cited from the Ice Age page is cited again:

Earth's orbit will become less eccentric for about the next 100,000 years, so changes in this insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity, and should not decline enough to permit a new glacial period in the next 50,000 years.[38][39] — Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

The thing you claim is contradicted ... is literally repeated the very next statement.

What "fails verification" is "recent work" that "suggests" insolation will increase over the next 25 000 years. Now, this could be just a misrepresentation of the work; for example, one subtle orbital mechanic that does increase insolation by itself, in an overall decreasing trend towards less insolation and (without human interference) reglaciation (as we both agree). But we don't know what the source material says ... because it's not cited (honestly seems like someone inserted some propaganda).

Now, what the very next statement in the Milankovitch cycles says, that a new glacial period may start in the next 50 000 years, is true for the Milankovitch cycle, but does not comment on man-made interference, which the Ice Age page provides this additional context with citation (no "failed verification").

Additionally, what matters is the actual sources, not what is tagged or not in Wikipedia. Someone could tag "failed verification" and then the very next day the source is added and the issue resolved.

We need to actual sources.

You are confusing research into the natural glaciations cycles that have been occurring for the last 2 million years with human interference in those natural cycles and the consequences of that.

Again, if humans interfere in a system the pattern may diverge wildly from what was there before. If we damn a river the patterns of fish migration may stop, even if they have been occurring for thousands of years.

If we remove a mountain in mountain top removal operation, it would be clearly wrong to say the mountain will still be there because the patter has been the mountain has been there for millions of years and plate movement is actually pushing the mountain upwards and making it taller. Yes, the natural pattern maybe that the mountain is getting taller and will get even taller due to plate tectonics ... but that theory of the natural system does not remain true if we go and remove said mountain.

This is a study from 2013 about summer insolation reglaciation triggering. It upholds the standard view that we're fairly close to a trigger point now since we know summer insolation is at a minimum.

If you want a simpler narrative, I would advise a climatology textbook. There are some good ones out there — Tate

The article you linked to in no way supports your claim that reglaciation will start in a few centuries.

The article also in no way contradicts the wikipedia statement that we've already delayed reglatiation by some 500 000 years or more.

The article you link to does not even address man-made climate change, but is studying the natural 100 000 year pattern of glaciation and inter-glacials.

The study investigates the mechanisms of glacial retreat in the natural cycle of glaciation.

Which, if humans interfere with the natural cycle, there is zero reason to assume things will continue as normal simply because that's been the pattern so far, just like if we damn a river there is no reason to assume the salmon will return and spawn in the river if the damn physically prevents them from doing so.

Wow. This is wrong. Wikipedia lets us down — Tate

I've explained at some length the idea of "supporting your conclusions".

Like, how is Wikipedia wrong on this point, what's the errors in the analysis of the cited sources? ... where are the climatologists with models demonstrating the ice age coming in a few centuries?

As I said, we've known about this since the 1980s. It just doesn't come up much because it's centuries away. — Tate

Can you cite one climate model predicting an ice age in a few centuries?

I would say because of the unknown, something unforeseen. Suppose some super disease appears because of climate change,and we don't survive it?

If down the road we want to stop reglaciation, let tomorrow's scientists figure out how to do that safely.

Thanks for being so friendly, and not at all unnecessarily aggressive. — Tate

Did you even bothering reading the second paragraph of wikipedia entry on "ice age"?

I'll site it again:

The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6] — Ice age-Wikipedia

Wikipedia can certainly be wrong, but claiming it is wrong should have more support than simply vaguely referencing something scientists knew in the 80s; and at least one reference to compete with Wikipedia's 3 references for this point.

And neither 50 000 years nor 500 000 years sounds like a few centuries to me.

It's not a different topic if it's happening in the next few centuries and there's nothing to worry about ... except starting to move our Northern most populations south so they don't get buried in kilometres of ice.

You've been making statements like:

For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. — Tate

Climatologists are observing glaciers melting and predicting more melting, where are the climatologists predicting reglaciation starting sometime in the next few centuries?

And if reglaciation is going to happen in the next few centuries, why worry about warming or stop CO2 emissions?

I don't even know what that means. — Tate

You're the one arguing we'll stay in an ice-age ... because we're in an ice-age.

That natural cycles, like the next glaciation, will happen for some reason despite our modifications to the atmosphere.

It would probably be prudent to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, like completely. — Tate

So what are you even arguing?

It's possible. If we burn all the coal we can access it will become more likely. That would take around 200 years. — Tate

So how does that square with the earth's biosphere is "self correcting"?

And, again, assuming you're aware outcomes increase in severity with the warming and have uncertainties (maybe it takes "burning all the coal", maybe it takes significantly less), how are these acceptable risks to take?

We're in an interglacial period of a large scale ice age. Specifically, we're at the end of an interglacial awaiting reglaciation. — Tate

If we did not change the composition of the earth's atmosphere.

I literally just cited the wikipedia article on "Ice age" explaining this, that we have already delayed the next glaciation by a good 500 000 years due to the carbon we've already emitted.

If we change the earths atmosphere composition even more, we can exit an ice-age to a significant (mass-extinction scale) degree (lose all year-round ice in the arctic) or even exit an ice age completely and melt the Antarctic as well, mass-extinction even harder.

Why? A rise in CO2 causes global warming which in turn causes greenification that counters the rise in CO2. That's a negative feedback loop alright! — Agent Smith

That's not a negative feedback loop that keeps the system stable, which is the issue: stability.

Negative feedback loop, connotes a a feedback mechanism strong enough to return a system to the same state: maintaining stability.

There is negative feedback, but it is not some sort of loop that returns the system to stability. Some carbon is absorbed by greening the antarctic, but it is a paltry amount compared to what we've emitted so far, and, in any-case, even small compared to other sources of CO2 such as permafrost and rain forests burning away.

It is not a feeback look, but better described as a buffer; absorbs some, like the oceans, slows down warming, but doesn't return the system to its former state.

A feedback loop would be that CO2 increase triggers mad greenification of deserts rapidly absorbing the excess C02 back to equilibrium baseline. This would be hypothetically possible if CO2 was the limiting factor to plant growth; however, it's not.

An example of a feedback mechanism in the earths system is ice melting:

More ice melts in the arctic ocean, more exposed water, more energy is absorbed resulting in more melting.

More ice melts in Greenland, more water absorbing more energy, but also lower the altitude of the ice surface gets, the lower the altitude the hotter, causing more melting (under a certain threshold catastrophic melting will occur).

For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. — Tate

You present yourself as "knowledgeable" about ice-ages ... but have not even bothered to read the second paragraph of the wikipedia entry "ice age":

In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after. — Ice age

What would have been the natural pattern if we didn't dump billions of tons of carbon a year into the atmosphere ... is not of predictive value if we do dump billions of carbon a year into the atmosphere.

It's like we're discussing building a damn, and you're explaining how that's not a problem for the ecosystems because the river has been naturally flowing without a problem for the fish for thousands of years, and scientists have already said the salmon come back every year to spawn (it's their instinct).

↪boethius

With global warming

1. The greenification of Antarctica will occur.

2. The northward march of the timber line has been predicted.

Negative feedback loops, oui? — Agent Smith

These are not negative feeback loops. The greenification of the Antarctic would be a massive change the the earth-life-system.

Eventually the CO2 will come down due to mostly weathering over hundreds of thousands of years.

However, this is not a negative feedback loop changing the earth-system back to what it is now.

Mass extinction, followed by a green antarctic, followed by millions of years of biodiversity recovery and potentially returning to the glaciation that we've had recently, is not stability.

CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions. — Agent Smith

The CO2 has to go somewhere, and it was difficult to predict how efficiently the oceans could absorb new CO2.

However, the oceans absorbing CO2 is not a good thing, as causes ocean acidification.

Likewise, other sinks, like rain forests, that can absorb more CO2 as plants can grow a bit faster with more of their food in the air, is not necessarily a good thing if we destroy those forests anyways, with slash and burn farming for cattle, or then climate change causing massive forest fires, which simply releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

For example, the entire Amazon forest may have already went from being a sink of CO2 to a source.

Edit: beat me to the obvious response, as with the previous response.

A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. — Tate

Climate change is easy to understand: change the composition of the atmosphere to trap more heat ... and more heat is trapped.

You are confusing basic understanding of a particular issue in a particular subject with modelling the whole subject.

The basic driver of climate change is incredibly easy to understand, and is basic thermodynamics (it's called the green-house effect ... because it's as simple as a greenhouse).

In the 70s there was some debate as to whether another simple effect of pollution, that dust creates shade, would in fact be stronger than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

One does not need to model the entire climate, or understand everything about it, to understand the globe is warming, why it's warming, and why that's bad for humans and other species.

It's really not complicated at all. It would be complicated and require deep expertise to create a predictive model.

However, it is not difficult to understand the mechanism of warming, the data that supports that conclusion, and what climatologists are talking about when they explain climate change in simple terms.

However, what's the explanation for the long delay in changes to atmospheric CO2 levels, not to mention the deviation from normal are miniscule. One explanation is there are some negative feedback loops that regulate the concentration of gases in the atmosphere and that's precisely what autoregulation is, oui? — Agent Smith

The earth system is not stable, there are no negative-feedback mechanisms that return it to the same state.

The earth-system has a lot of buffers that make change slow. Most of the time change and patterns of change are relatively constant and life easily adapts to these changes.

Thus, total biodiversity can be stable over long periods of time, but even then species themselves are not stable but going extinct and new one's evolving constantly.

This apparent stability is due to large buffers in the earths system that slow down change (but are not negative feedback loops).

A better visualisation of the earth's system is simply a large boat in calm water. It seems stable as long as there's no wind, easily confused with a boat at anchor.

A light breeze and it gently floats somewhere else, totally unpredictable which direction, how far it goes etc. Slow enough the boat can easily just lightly beach itself and later free itself, bounce off rocks and docks etc.

The wandering around of the boat represents evolution.

Where the boat is at any given time we can understand as its journey through evolutionary space (each point on the lake represents some possible configuration of the earth's living systems, and the whole lake represents all possible configurations).

It's a very heavy boat, so takes a significant input of energy to crash it.

Such energy inputs only come around once in hundreds of millions of years: production of large quantities of oxygen for the first time, giant asteroid, volcanic traps, or "perfect storm" combination of various disasters.

Crashing the boat onto rocks represents a mass-extinction, the points along the short that require significant momentum to reach representing low-biodiversity configurations of the earth-life-system.

Same analogy can be made with something that's heavy, that rolls, that seems "stable" but someone gives it a nudge and off it goes, compared to an actually stable situation where the brakes are engaged.

It's not clear whether increased CO2 will take us out of the present ice age or not. — Tate

To remind you of your position in the thread:

↪boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well. — Agent Smith

Which you have yet to contradict, so are still defending? Or then some cowardly non-defence but ... also not admitting a contradiction!?

You say:

"""
"The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually."
— Tate

And then contradict that statement with:

"As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase. It's Henry's Law."
— Tate
"""
— boethius

That's not a contradiction. — Tate

And, what is clear in the current science is that the amount of CO2 we've released so far into the atmosphere will cause severe damages to earth systems, is already causing severe damages, nothing can now stop that.

What's also clear is that the risk of feedback mechanism (aka. tipping points) is exceedingly high.

And what matters is risk, not guarantees. It is irrational to take an even small risk of melting the Arctic ice-cap and most mountain glaciers and and Greenland. It is irrational to take an even small risk of entering an entirely ice-free climate with the melting of the Antarctic as well.

These are not reasonable risks to take. "100% certainty" is a fossil lobby delay tactic that the gullible fall for (more importantly, a talking point for corrupt politicians knowing they are killing people and destroying the planet for money ... or then just useful idiots financed from the beginning because they're clueless).

For example, let's say it isn't certain as you say.

What is the uncertainty? i.e. risk level.

Why would that risk, even according to your numbers, be worthwhile to take?

That's the standard scientific perspective at this time. — Tate

Did you even read what I wrote? My point was you know this because scientists told you.

The same scientists saying that the climate is not self correcting and our modifications to the atmosphere are of extreme concern and may kill billions of people as well as cause a mass-extinction of life on earth.

Why listen to one thing they say, but dismiss off-hand another?

Global warming is real. Nobody said otherwise. — Tate

Again ... (ignoring the other climate change gas-lighters that drop in from time to time) you yourself literally stated:

↪boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well. — Agent Smith

... Explain how that's somehow not contradiction again?

And to respond ahead of time to your bullshit.

How do you know we've been in an ice-age as you say?

Did you drill those core samples yourself? Or are you just repeating things that scientists who do that research say?

If their credible on the ice-age scientific facts you base your argument on ... why are they not credible on their opinions on climate change?

You cannot simply selectively pick someone's credibility, when it supports your world view and just dismiss anything else they say when it doesn't. You must at least provide:

A. you understand their analysis that you think is wrong; if their credible on something else, clearly their analysis is something that at least needs contending with.

B. compelling reasons and evidence that their analysis you disagree with is in fact wrong.

Scientists can for sure be wrong, even whole communities of scientists, but one needs compelling reasons and can't just dismiss their wrong-ideas off hand when convenient without justification. It is critical in such situation to make clear what they get right, why they get it right, demonstrate deep understanding of what they get wrong and compelling analysis and evidence that they are in fact wrong.

For example, Einstein didn't just declare "Newton is wrong! Don't believe anything he said!" but rather demonstrated a deep understanding of Newtonian gravity, why it works well in our local context, a deep understanding of where it maybe deficient, and a new theory that addresses those deficiencies with compelling analysis and proof (without contradicting, but providing a deeper explanation of, whatever is true in the old theory).

Truism like "we're in an ice age!" or:

↪boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. — Agent Smith

Is not scientific theory, but things that sound clever to libertarians (who are collectively dumb as toast).

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

Maybe you should get up to speed on what's already been discussed on this very thread.

For people who don't want to spend effort doing basic web searches about this topic before debating it.

Here's a presentation by a credible scientist on the issue of collapse and climate change:
— boethius

Is a comment from 12 months ago, posting a video for those who can't "google" as you recommend others to do.

The key words in "climate change" are "change" and "climate", as in we are changing the climate from ice-age to not-ice age, through the green house effect that heats the planet, heat that is not good for ice.

I drive therefore I am.

Yes, one of the more successful campaigns at getting us to buy things we don't need. I imagine a smoke-filled board room in Manhattan somewhen in the late 1920s -
"People have already bought all the labour-saving stuff that makes their lives easier, it lasts a lifetime, we're going to go out of business. Any ideas?". Long silence.
"We could always sell them stuff they don't need...or make the stuff they do need break...".
"Excellent. We'll do both",
"But people would have to either be really stupid or really desperate to buy stuff they don't even need which breaks after a year",
"Excellent. We'll do both". — Isaac

It's so frighteningly simple.

Yes, it was, in the end, but I apologise for the misdirection. — Isaac

No worries at all.

I think this is one of the oddities in considering modern war. All war is aimed at peace. All wars aim to have peace in which the borders (or political influence) have shifted. The aim is (was) never permanent war. So Russia should always be viewed as trying to gain a better bargaining position in the same power negotiations which preceded the war. As such, it would be insane not to be regularly 'testing the water' to see if they feel they've gained that position yet. — Isaac

Completely agreed. The parties that seemed, maybe still seem, to really want war, the longer the better, are the US, UK and the former Soviet NATO members.

... or, indeed, exactly as you say:

Of equal, if not greater, interest to me are the methods they use to wield public opinion as s tool to this end. Hence the interest in the kinds of pro-US comment collected here. — Isaac

So we have to ask, I think, why the US are so uninterested in negotiations. That is the interesting question, and one best answered by looking at what they have to gain from a long drawn out war. — Isaac

Yes, in a matter of months US went from facing criticism for 2 decades of pointless war followed by letting "allies" fall off their planes hanging on in terror, to the "defenders of the free world".

This position ought be unaffected by whether we're winning or not, since at any time the opposing side might feel they have their best case (either because they've gained the advantage they wanted, or because they fear their current advantage may deteriorate). — Isaac

Yes, well said. As for the current situation, for me the litmus test of Ukrainian "winning" ability is Kherson. If Ukraine had any significant counter-offensive capability, it would push the Russians the the East bank of the Dnieper river.

Not only would this be a sure military embarrassment for Russia, but it would radically increase the defensive situation vis-a-vis Odessa (and everything other Westward direction Ukraine), freeing up manpower.

There is now talk of a Kherson offensive starting ... any day now. If it succeeds then legend of Russian exhaustion, extreme casualties, low moral, inferior equipment, would be finally proven true. If it fails then it would be clear that Ukraine has no counter offensive potential (F-16's would not fix anything).

Ideally, the current threat against Kherson is for diplomatic purposes that ultimately succeed.

I don't know what kind of timescale you had in mind, but I think this has been true for some time. I was involved with the road protest movement in England in the 90s and it was (on reflection) exactly as you describe. — Isaac

Honestly not sure how far back this pattern goes, as there's a selection bias of small victories and momentum in order to support the myth of progress which easily (especially in the good times) pervades everything.

No one really talked about the solutions to excessive car use, which would have involved a discussion about the break up of communities, increasing social isolation, the erosion of self-esteem, urban growth policy, taxation (public services provision)...etc. — Isaac

Yes, it really all comes down to cars, suburban sprawl and city planning around cars, and most importantly car culture, which I would argue is the ontological basis of Western individualism and consumerism (I am not of this world because I am in a car).

Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing? So small a thing!

I meant that I didn't expect any serious response for him, not you! — Isaac

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying.

It did cross my mind as a possibility, but then it seemed fruitful anyways to contemplate this criticism as I have a deep respect for your point of view and it was an invitation for some soul searching.

It is valid rebuke that I haven't been talking about compromise lately, and maybe with the grain deal it's a good moment to refocus on that. That this deal was possible I think is grounds for at least hope peace can be achieved in the short term.

It's possible all parties are now in a "it has to stop somehow" attitude.

Especially with Johnson and Draghi resignations, and total collapse of Sri Lanka, the West maybe starting to enter "serious reality" mode.

Likewise, Russia certainly has all sorts of problems relating the war and sanctions, can certainly sell to its people military victory at this point in time, so there maybe strong desire for peace on that side as well.

So, perhaps the conditions are ripe, but I think what is clear is that "open source diplomacy" has been ended as an experiment, so the situation is difficult to analyse.

What cards each side has is easy to point out, but it's difficult to guess what sort of recipe might be accepted by all parties. However, if there's serious intention to find peace, it is certainly doable by the global diplomatic community, and I hope their voices are starting to be louder in the offices of power; even if only for raw self-serving career preservation at this point.

Normally, it implies you respond to the post, not to something else. — Olivier5

Responding to a post in no way means taking every possible opposing position.

As @Isaac has himself clarified, regardless of your interpretation of the author cited, and regardless of what the author is really meaning, @Isaac agrees with the authors goal of exploring and trying to reach a compromise (which his very much an ideation process, until something is found that "works").

Which is the only inference that is warranted from @Isaac's statement, that he approves of people trying to find peace through pragmatic compromise rather than more bloodshed.

my main point was to counter this absurd notion that we'd be surprised people might be willing to compromise to achieve peace. — Isaac

That's what I understood from your statement, a general point about pragmatism and compromise. We're in agreement there.

But I don't really expect a serious debate about that from you, — Isaac

I have no serious peace proposals at the moment as I honestly do not see either side compromising right now, which is what happens when a war goes beyond the initial stages and both sides have sacrificed too much to compromise; very predictable situation.

Before, and at the start of the war, I argued for the compromise of neutral Ukraine, independence of the Donbas, recognition of Crimea and restarting the water there. Of course, this was what Russia was proposing so many said it would be "giving into" Russia, but these points were basically already negotiated in the Minsk agreements, so hardly unreasonable.

Of course, as you point out, more Russia pays a price in blood and insofar as there's no fear of failure, demands only go up as they can be achieved by military means.

So, for the moment the only analysis I see has relevant is refuting statements I disagree with as well as explaining the situation: NATO is bleeding the Russians and calibrating the arms supply to do that without actually risking a Russian loss: hence one weapon system at a time, to observe it's effect and seeing what supply level doesn't really change anything, before moving on to the next weapons system.

If you actually wanted Ukraine to win, you'd supply all the weapon systems as early as possible ... not after critical defeats in Kherson, Mariupol and Donbas.

However, the grain deal is maybe a sign both sides are tiring out and want to reach a deal.

NATO membership has already been ruled out, and the critical terms would essentially be over land.

It's possible Russia makes an offer Ukraine accepts, but seems to me unlikely. So a peace deal would be essentially on Russia's terms and more Ukrainian capitulation. If Ukraine can simply no longer sustain the fight, this is possible. But we really have no way of really knowing the military situation on the ground.

Of course, Europe could go and make serious offers on sanctions, Nord Stream 2, resolution of all legal issues related to the war, and so on to compensate Russia going back to the three initial points.

Maybe this is possible.

There's plenty of serious things to debate in terms of acceptable compromise on all sides.

However, if fighting the Russians is a moral imperative, then compromise would be immoral, so I see this topic as entirely relevant to the matter at hand, as that's how it has been framed in the West: Russia is evil, Putin is Hitler, Zelensky is Churchill, democracy as such is at stake, etc.

I don't see how we get to compromise before wading through these issues, which @Olivier5 and company are representing.

Be serious now. He was responding to my post where I clearly wondered about why the Baltic States should exit NATO. — Olivier5

Sure, but responding to a post does not somehow imply you take the opposite position to everything in said post.

@Isaac's fundamental position (same as mine) is the war should be ended by a negotiated peace by the parties involved, which would obviously mean a compromise.

Of course, what compromise is achievable and reasonable compared to further war can be debated.

Likewise, if the Baltic states increased their real security by joining NATO can be debated, and likewise just as it is legitimate to discuss a country trying to join NATO (and discuss if NATO would let them join), it is equally legitimate to discuss if existing NATO be good or bad for a country. Alliances and international organisations are not one way streets, as Brexit demonstrates.

Now, I would argue that the Baltic states would not, for now at least, even consider existing NATO and there would be no practical way to kick them out of NATO even if other members wanted them gone, which seems unlikely as well, and I'd also argue Brexit was a mistake. Nevertheless, such changes to international relations are hardly unthinkable and happen regularly throughout history, and certainly legitimate to debate.

However, what I was responding to was the idea that Baltic states feelings of security has any relevance in any of these topics. Obviously they most likely did feel more secure after joining. Certainly Ukraine would have felt more secure if they were let in.

That's not a contradiction. — Tate

"As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase" means that both are increasing reaching an equilibrium: an equilibrium in which CO2 concentrations are higher both in the atmosphere and in the ocean when we burn carbon.

Therefore, in direct contradiction with the statement "CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually."

Some of the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, but it is through mostly weathering where CO2 is removed from the carbon cycle, and as this occurs and atmospheric CO2 decreases, then CO2 will also then be released from the oceans back into the atmosphere to maintain the balance.

Difficult to get a more direct contradiction.

However, worse, ocean absorbing CO2 is not a "good sink" that helps, but leads to mass ocean death due to ocean acidification. It is a terrifying problem that the oceans absorb a good part of the CO2 we release in the atmosphere, the extreme other end of the spectrum to "oceans will deal with it, nothing to see here".

In short, oceans will not absorb all the CO2 we've released somehow magically solving our problem, and of the CO2 we release that enters the ocean it is in no way a good thing but entirely a bad thing if one cares about other species (and our own).

I understood this to mean the removal of NATO membership for those NATO members already bordering Russia, i e. the Baltic States. — Olivier5

Well, that seems of the two options you thought of, the wrong one.

As you point out yourself it could also mean no additional members, which makes far more sense for someone to propose, especially as the current members that border Russia (excluding Kaliningrad).

Removing existing members from NATO is obviously far more extreme, impractical, and unrealistic, and so maybe give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume a less extreme interpretation unless it is clearly clarified that indeed they are meaning the extreme interpretation.

So he was clearly talking about the Baltic States walking out of NATO to appease Moscow. — Olivier5

This is not at all clear.

Almost difficult to argue at all, since first you would need to argue that @Isaac has the same understanding of "no more" as you did (which is far from obvious) and also by "some people are willing to take pragmatic steps for peace" he is endorsing this extreme "kick existing NATO members out of NATO", rather than just an expression of principle ... which is in direct contradiction to your interpretations of "no more" as it's clearly in no way pragmatic to kick existing NATO members states out of NATO.

If Eastern European countries feel threatened by Russia and therefore join NATO as deterrent against direct aggression (it doesn't matter if they are justified), NATO expansion is still the culprit. — neomac

Again, the basic issue: Eastern European countries do not necessarily have the option to "feel threatened by Russia and therefore join NATO". Some do and some (such as Ukraine) don't, since NATO doesn't let them in ... they are unable to simply "therefore join NATO".

Of the countries that were allowed to join by the grace of NATO, it can of course be debated whether it actually increases security or not. True, NATO is a powerful ally, but if joining NATO destabilises your entire region, your security maybe severely undermined even sans-WWIII (and increasing the odds of WWIII isn't exactly "good" for security).

Why is that always NATO expansion is the culprit that can not be excused/justified based on perception/reality analysis of moral or geopolitical reasons? — neomac

Again, if the argument is that Ukraine feels threatened by Russia and therefore wants to join NATO since 2008 ... I see zero problems with such a argument.

The problem is NATO didn't let Ukraine join.

If your point is that hypothetically Ukraine would have liked to join NATO, and would like to still, and hypothetically this would be good for Ukraine, I don't have a problem with such assertions. Sure hypothetically it may have triggered WWIII or then hypothetically it would have avoided the war and been great for Ukraine.

These hypotheticals did not happen though. NATO is definitely the culprit in pretending the "might" do it, which is purely provocative and without actually doing it provides essentially zero additional security to Ukraine.

↪boethius What? — Tate

You want me to explain it again:

You make false statements that you yourself agree are false:

You say:

The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually. — Tate

And then contradict that statement with:

As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase. It's Henry's Law. — Tate

Your other statements are not even scientific.

The greatest challenge to life on earth so far was low CO2, btw. High CO2 hasn't been been as much of a threat. — Tate

What "challenges" to life have existed over the past 4 billion years requires a non-scientific teleology for life, a goal to life in which to be challenged about, which pretty much any scientist would point out is non-scientific anthropomorphism ("all life" doesn't have any goals, as far as science goes, other than what we project on to it) as obviously the only goal available to postulate is making sentient and intelligent life (ourselves) and anything that we suppose goes in that directly is a good thing and anything that doesn't is a bad thing.

So, not a scientific statement and the followup of "high Co2 hasn't been much a threat" is not even clear how it relates to your teleology of life: threat to all life and total extinction of everything? or threat to particular ecosystem epochs ... in which case CO2 rise has been a major threat:

Roughly 251 million years ago, an estimated 70 percent of land plants and animals died, along with 84 percent of ocean organisms—an event known as the end Permian extinction. The cause is unknown but it is known that this period was also an extremely warm one. A new analysis of the temperature and fossil records over the past 520 million years reveals that the end of the Permian is not alone in this association: global warming is consistently associated with planetwide die-offs. — Scientific America

I'm afraid it is the issue we are discussing. Read the thread. — Olivier5

No where does @Isaac claim:

The argument was already provided: if the baltic states joined NATO, it is most probably because they felt safer inside it than outside it. — Olivier5

You were responding to:

I realise this will come as a surprise to someone who think civilian casualties are just like extras in a film, but some people actually care about peace and are willing to take pragmatic steps to maintain it.

Such as not being part of a military alliance your massive, very militaristic neighbour considers a threat. — Isaac

Which has nothing at all to do about anyone's feelings.

@Isaac's satement here is in no way contradicted nor has any problem accommodating people's feelings. Whether the Baltic state's feel safer or not, has no direct bearing on whether they are actually safer.

For example, NATO eastward expansion (which Baltic states have participated in) is a big, if not "the" big reason for the current war, which plenty of experts predicted would happen (including the US's own cold-war top analysts's and policy makers), and the current war is a major threat to Baltic security. Things can be argued both ways ... but people can feel safe independent of whatever the facts are.

And again, no one here is disputing that Ukraine (as defined as a majority or just the ruling elite) would "feel safer" in NATO. Feelings don't matter in this context. See my bank example above.

As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase. It's Henry's Law. — Tate

You are literally repeating what I stated: a balance is reached.

Your statement was that oceans will eventually absorb all the CO2 ... literally stating:

The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually. — Tate

But if you know your chemistry fundamentals, why made such an absurd claim. The idea shouldn't even come to mind.

Or, maybe you had no clue what you were talking about, but have since educated yourself a bare minimum.

Which is good, having a basic respect for the subject matter you're discussing is a step in the right direction.

For example, if you cite data collected by scientists, borrowing their work and credibility to make a point, a basic respect would be at least take their theories, models and interpretations (in terms of politics and ethics) of the data, that they collect and study, seriously enough as to not simply dismiss anything you find inconvenient entirely based on a-scientific, hand-wavy, vague truisms such as "biosphere is self-correcting" or then simply false statements like "The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed by the oceans".

Also, last week I pointed out that the escalation in weapons systems is calibrated to ensure Ukraine loses (and so Russia has no reason to use nuclear weapons), each weapon system is hyped as "the thing" that will defeat Russia, each weapon system fails to do so, and then the cycle is repeated with the next weapon system.

And, after HIMARS have both made a "decisive" difference (like the shoulder mounted rockets, drones, artillery, body armour, air defence, and all the rest before) ... but has also not produced victory and anything resembling winning important battles.

Literally a few days after HIMARS was announced as basically the greatest success that has occurred in the history of warfare ... F16's ... right on cue.

↪Isaac The argument was already provided: if the baltic states joined NATO, it is most probably because they felt safer inside it than outside it. — Olivier5

That's not the issue you're even discussing. Obviously the people joining likely felt safer to join and that's why they therefore joined (the alternative being bribery).

However, the baltic states are small, do not occupy so critical strategic locations (such as compared to Georgia) and have few ethnic Russians (mainly due to them having been concentrated in Kaliningrad), but mainly they are just small and not a big strategic threat. Russia never expressed that the Baltics in NATO was a major security risk that they would need to react to (only forward missile bases, that for a while was respected, and even, at least nominally, there are no forward offensive missile bases, just defence against Iran, supposedly), made any threats about invading the Baltics if they joined NATO, and did not invade.

However, in the case of Georgia and Ukraine it was made very clear by the Russians that they would view joining NATO as an intolerable security threat, that they would do something to prevent it happening, and in both cases kept to their word on that.

Of course, you can argue that the best thing for Ukrainians, even considering Russia threats and clear intention to carry them through (especially after doing exactly that in Georgia), would still be join NATO and have NATO come and defend Ukrainian borders and extend the nuclear umbrella the eastern border and tip of Crimea.

Maybe true.

The problem is that NATO didn't let Ukraine join.

Say I want the bank to give me 10 billion Euros.

The problem is the bank doesn't give it to me, not my desire to have the 10 billion which can remain constant nor the arguments I can make that getting the 10 billion would be good for me, and my simply restating my desire for 10 billion Euros, and the reasons getting that 10 billion Euros would be good for me, is not an effective strategy to deal with the problem. Effective strategy would be realising despite my desire for 10 billion Euros of the banks money, the banks power to give it to me if it wanted, and my justifications of why such a thing happening would be good for me, that the bank is very unlikely to give me 10 billion Euros just because I ask for it and think I should have it, and to come up with an entirely different life plan.

Now, no one disputes Ukraine wanted to be in NATO and that NATO had the power to let Ukraine join (even now it could fly over some papers and have Ukraine in Nato tomorrow), and no one disputes that Ukraine joining NATO would be good for Ukraine.

The problem is NATO didn't think that would be good for NATO (otherwise it would have done it years ago).

NATO is the friend you don't want to have: not by your side when you need them, offering mainly moral support that is (over time) demoralising, and offering indirect no-skin-in-the-game material support insofar as you serve their purposes (of course, time will tell if as much talk, money, and energy will be spent by the West rebuilding Ukraine).

The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually. — Tate

Untrue statement.

Ocean concentration reaches a balance with CO2 atmospheric concentrations, that it is absorbing and releasing the same amount.

Ocean absorption for the atmospheric concentrations we've reached (higher than in millions of years) is a major ecological problem as it changes the PH of the entire ocean than what ocean life has experienced in millions of years, but we are approaching an acidification level in which in which calcium shells simply don't form. A total catastrophe, not the oceans helping out by eventually solving the problem.

CO2 is not eventually all absorbed the ocean, but it removed from the carbon cycle through weathering, reacting mostly with basalt, in a super long process that takes thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Eventually it is all weathered out, but new CO2 is added to the carbon cycle, mostly, through volcanos and a balance is reached.

The greatest challenge to life on earth so far was low CO2, btw. — Tate

Again, untrue statement.

Arguably greatest challenge to life was starting and "holding on" in the first place, and the conditions for that were: "When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere" as informed by Smithsonian Environment Research Center.

The very next slide explains: "Three billion years ago, the sun was only about 70 percent as bright as it is today. Earth should have frozen over, but it didn’t. Why not? Because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly methane and carbon dioxide, trapped enough of the sun’s heat to keep temperatures above freezing."

I think the knowledge you are looking for is that the earth's atmosphere has had a lot of variation and life has not only adapted to but a main cause of these variations.

By pumping billions of tons carbon into the atmosphere every year for over a century, we are pushing the earth into a "hot house" dynamic where snow is largely missing from both poles, changing the climate significantly to one a large part of current multi-celular life is not adapted, cannot adapt in pace with changes, and will go extinct (as is currently already happening from many other human actions, but climate change is a lot worse as it also affects man-made or happenstance refuges for life).

High CO2 hasn't been been as much of a threat. — Tate

What's even the purpose of this statement? Even if true that high CO2 hasn't been much of a threat, obviously doesn't even exclude that it's a threat now. Other species have not dug and pumped up vast quantities of carbon, completely disturbing the carbon cycle balance.

Are you suggesting that running this uncontrolled experiment of what happens when a species does dig up carbon and dumps vast quantities in the atmosphere in a single geological moment, that it's somehow less risky because no species has run the experiment before?

↪boethius I'm sure Google can help you out in searching for instances of life's self-correcting feature. — Agent Smith

You did not state life has "self correcting features". There's plenty of self correcting features, from DNA repair to tectonics plats "correcting" mountains by rising to compensate weathering.

You stated self-correcting is a feature of the biosphere so strong that current CO2 changes will be self-corrected like all the others in the ice-core record.

Furthermore, I literally state that the biosphere is self-correcting to short term and limited changes ...

Nevertheless, you're right on the money that this ability of the biosphere to right itself after being knocked over (roly-poly toy like) has limits - beyond a certain point, the point of no return, the system collapses into a death spiral. — Agent Smith

So what are you even debating?

This is why scientists (the ones that produced the data you are talking about) are alarmed. That the changes to CO2 levels (and land-use, fish, etc.) we've caused is far beyond planetary boundaries.

↪boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. — Agent Smith

First, it's simply a false understanding to say the biosphere is self-correcting.

Ecosystem stability is measured in the variability of biodiversity, but that biodiversity itself is not self correcting but constantly changing with a "background" level of extinctions, invasive species, as well as antigenic drift within species. Self correcting would connote returning the same state, but the biosphere does not do this even in "normal" times.

The biosphere adapts to changes and does not somehow resist changes by self-correcting.

Now, if you want to reformulate that by biosphere you don't mean the biosphere as such but certain abstract variables, then yeah, sure; but "self-correcting" yourself like that only betrays a total lack of knowledge and respect for the subject matter you are discussing.

Of course, far worse mistake, and not a matter of taxonomy in the slightest, is your belief that "self-correcting" mechanisms of the biosphere can simply be assumed to be robust enough to deal with climate change.

There is zero evidence for this vis-a-vis climate change. If your justification is simply that you have a right to your opinion despite having zero evidence and zero analysis supporting it ... sure, yeah, great justification, hats off to you.

The earth's biosphere only has self-correcting mechanisms of perturbations, for short term and limited changes. A limited amount of pollution can be diluted and / or processed and / or simply tolerated by the biosphere, but those buffers only last for a certain quantity of pollution. Enough CFC's and the dilution and processing of CFC's is overwhelmed and ozone gets depleted, enough ozone depletion and life systems cannot tolerate the sudden increase in ultra violet light (protection from which has existed on earth since oxygen).

Geological history does show long periods of stability as no event or series of events exceeded the buffers maintaining stability. Over long periods of time the earth's systems can be remarkably stable, one geological eon, the Archean, lasting a billion and half years.

However, the geological record also demonstrates what happens when buffers are exceeded: mass extinction and recovery of biodiversity over tens of millions of years.

The "Freakonomics" guys thought they had some great insight when they pointed out that what matters is rates of change. They honestly seemed to believe it had never occurred to any physicist that the difference between a car crash and a normal stop is the rate of change of the speed of the vehicle.

It wasn't a new insight, but it is of course true: the difference between a stable ecosystem in terms of biodiversity and a mass extinction, is the rate of change of number of extinctions.

That mass extinctions are "good" or "bad", there are arguments on both sides. Mass extinctions do "shake things up" and send life on a different direction than it was before, but each one could also be simply delaying complex life emerging and a significant risk of some "great filter" event. However, I don't know any position that argues causing a mass extinction the best we can, as thoroughly as we can, is our duty in order for new and better stuff to maybe evolve later.

"The earth will survive" argument I have only ever heard supporting the position of apathy and indifference to other species and other people.

However, if you are apathetic and indifferent, why speak?