Before anyone responds, please allow me to point out that I did not choose this forum accidentally, nor phrase the threat title capriciously. I am specifically looking for the opinions of persons already convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming; I am not looking to begin a debate as to whether AGW is real. Persons wishing to engage in such a debate may check out this thread.
Now that that’s out of the way, I’ll restate the thread question, which is addressed specifically to persons already convinced that climate change is real and that it is caused by human activities. It is a common theme among persons holding those positions that we are approaching a tipping point: a time in the not-terriby-distant-future after which the changes in the Earth’s climate will be so great that solving the problem will no longer be possible. Assuming that that is the case, do you believe humanity will make the needed changes in time? Why or why not?
If Co2 is the cause of all evil then the tipping point can always be reversed with large scale scrubbers. This could be done overnight (by planet time-scale standards). I’ve never understood the hysteria. I don’t want to call bullshit on the whole issue but I’m not seeing anything close to a problem.
No. Because I don’t think we’ll be able to convince enough people that a real effort is needed until it’s too late. We’re too entrenched in our ways and we’re not willing to change unless change is forced upon us.
I am not totally convinced one way or the other, so my opinion might not interest you. I think that if global warming is for real, then we’re screwed. Out of sheer laziness if nothing else, too many people will refuse to change their ways. Even if change is forced upon us, by the time enough people in power are willing to forgo popularity for global health, it will have been far past the time any change at all will help.
I phrased the OP as I did mostly because the opinions of persons who are convinced that AGW is fictional may be safely guessed and because I didn’t want to have a debate here (as the subforum might make obvious). So you’re good, [BLitoris**.
Arguments that we’re driving off a cliff have no basis. If Florida started to disappear we would be removing co2 the next day. Necessity drives results.
Of course we will make a difference. Every pound of CO2 emitted or not affects the entire atmosphere. So it’s a matter of degree; how much damage will we mitigate by reducing our emissions?
It’s already too late to mitigate all the damage, since we’re already experiencing some. And it’s extremely unlikely that we will avoid even most of the damage, since there’s too much inertia and it’s too costly to quickly reduce the current level of emissions. On the other hand, at some point the damage would be so self-evident that everyone will accept responsibility and extensive action would be taken. In the worst case, the damage would be so broad that our CO2 output would be reduced directly by effects of global climate change.
But I think the most likely happenstance is that as the evidence and damage accumulates, the cost-to-benefit ratio of action vs inaction will tip our societies toward greater effort. And as we do more to reduce CO2 emissions, we will find even more cost-efficient ways of reducing emissions. I expect that our CO2 emissions per economic output will be a small fraction of what it currently is in one hundred years.
And when the river washes the city into the ocean it’s obvious you needed better dikes - but it’s too late to build them. When the earth shifts into a new climate, it’s likely to be effectively permanent. A few CO2 scrubbers won’t replace melted polar ice, or stuff methane back into clathrate under the melted permafrost, and so on.
If, and I say IF, there is a causational relationship between fossil fuels and climate change it won’t matter. The relationship is insignificantly small (if it exists at all) and we’re going to run out of fossil fuels in a very short time. By short I mean 50 to 100 years at best. So, what’s all the worrying about?
If we take the CO2 back out, the poles will refreeze as quickly as they melted. Fixing the climate will be the easy part; it all relatively simple physics and chemistry. The permanent damages will be ecological things like species extinctions, although even those might be recoverable with sufficient preparation. But ecosystems won’t fail everywhere all at once. It won’t be a cliff, but an increasingly steep hillside.
No, they won’t. The ice sheets themselves contribute to keeping the planet cooler; they reflect sunlight. And removing the carbon dioxide - which isn’t a simple task - won’t remove the methane released from methane clathrates. Cooling the world back off is likely to be quite a bit harder than warming it. We’ll also be suffering from little problems like famine and mass refugee movements, which will seriously hamper our ability to do much of anything.
Which we’ve had all through history. I’m actually worried that we could take it too far and trigger the law of unintended consequences. The environment needs to be set back to a point where the oceans scrub co2 in a sustainable loop.
I think the thread title is a bit misleading. There isn’t a “before it is too late” point. For instance, if you’re throwing coke cans in the street, there isn’t a point at which the Earth is going to cave in under the weight, but there also isn’t a point at which your street looks lovely and perfect except for when there are no coke cans at all. But certainly, the more coke cans there are, the more you’re going to have to duck and weave, or even strap on tank treads to your vehicle. We’re already at that point, the USDA has declared that we should expect all of the national plant type zones are going to shift. And it’s likely that all weather patterns will be amped up for the next couple of centuries. So it’s more a question of how long we want that to continue.
Personally, I think that global CO2 emissions won’t start to balance out for at least 50 years.
The only thing that will turn global warming around now will be the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Be thankful that you live in the best armed and best fed country on the globe,
No, we won’t. More land will be underwater, or no longer suitable for crops for other climate related reasons. Shifts in ocean currents turning Europe’s climate into something like Canada’s, more frequent storms washing away more topsoil, etc.
Yes, there is. When the Earth’s climate changes to a new more-or-less stable climate, changing it back is going to be very hard. At that point, we could end ALL CO2 production, and the climate may well stay the same.
Email me in 10 years, 'cause you’re completely wrong and it ain’t gonna happen. In another decade we’ll still be the same as we are now. And ten years after that it will still be the same. And 10 years…
Except I don’t think the actually warming (overall) will be that much of a negative for the planet.
If YOU live just a barely above sea level, thats gonna suck though.
I’m way more worried about asteroids/comets, bioengineered supper death herpes, or for whatever complex reason (social or otherwise) the collapse of technologically sophisticated human society.
Back to the OP. Are we going to do enough in time? No. With China, India and the 2nd/3rd world trying to either improve or just get along? Hell no IMO
At least when it all goes blooey I can ask all the tree huggers “Are you happy now? And can you please be quite?”
Highly unlikely. We are looking at a major change. Quite likely, we are looking at a permanent ( on a human scale ) change to a warmer climate that has never existed in all of human history.