did you mean Dunning-Kruger?
Depends on your image of hell, I suppose.
Fine, call it Waterworld, if you prefer. 1.5 degrees may not sound like much, but here are some effects we’re already beginning to see.
Wait, what was your solution again?
It is not too late to reduce carbon loading by offsetting fossil fuel produced energy with nuclear. We are talking about 30-80 year time horizons, how is it too late to talk about replacing coal burning with nuclear power?
Yes, nuclear waste is a problem (that would mostly be solved with a Yucca mountain facility), but only because of the anti-nuclear sentiment. If there was more support for nuclear power, we would have it.
We would only need the nuclear power for one or two hundred years until science allowed our civilization to transform itself and migrate to clean energy. In the meantime, it’s a lot easier to handle localized nuclear waste than atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Waterworld?
From your link:
“Researchers project that by 2100, average sea levels will be 2.3 feet (.7 meters) higher in New York City, 2.9 feet (0.88 m) higher at Hampton Roads, Virginia, and 3.5 feet (1.06 m) higher at Galveston, Texas”
That doesn’t seem like something worth diving headfirst into a global great depression to avoid.
Uh, the oceans will not stop rising after 2100.
Maybe if you live in a city like Denver. If you live in, say, New Orleans or Miami, say bye bye.
Then it’s not waterworld, now is it?
Or was waterworld just hyperbole for “some coastal areas will be underwater”
Most large cities are on the coasts
You don’t think that having many major cities under water could trigger a global recession?
So? What do you suggest?
We cannot conserve our way to zero emissions, we certainly cannot conserve our way to negative emissions. We have to science our way there.
We need fewer hedge fund managers and more scientists. I’m sorry if that is too uncertain for a lot of you but you simply aren’t going to scold or snark your way past global warming. We will need actual science.
Another thread on the subject over in IMHO
I had pointed at many suggestions from experts on past discussions, many times even before to you too, so this is a bit rich.
Funnily enough, scientists like Richard Alley (the one cited back in 2014) did talk about the science that was available then to deal with the issue, too bad that few listened to guys like him.
Heh, he don’t know me really well, huh folks? 
The science has been ignored more and more, but not from people like me.
https://www.climateone.org/events/dr-richard-alley-2011-stephen-schneider-award
She’s an activist, for goodness sake. She chose to be in the spotlight. I have seen absolutely no indication that it was thrust upon her, or that she wants to stop being in the spotlight. She’s standing up for what she believes in.
And being autistic and having OCD is irrelevant. You’re not her doctor, so don’t try to claim what is good for or not. It doesn’t have any affect on whether her message is accurate or not.
Heck, the fact that conservatives feel the need to attack her or belittle her shows that she’s actually accomplishing something. People don’t start going on about her having a “temper tantrum” or claim she’s being brainwashed unless they’re scared of her.
The above said, I wouldn’t have had a problem with the Hong Kong protesters winning, either. That said, I don’t think they are a clear winner, either. As long as they are in the top five (along with Pelosi and the Whistleblower) I’m okay with that.
(We’ve already discussed before why Trump also deserves to be in contention, even though he is horrible.)
Is there any chance of not having the same climate change discussion over and over? Study after study after study after study after study finds that the effects from climate change based on the direction we’re headed will be anywhere from extremely bad to catastrophic. You cannot simply take one metric (global average sea rise) and say “Hey, that doesn’t sound so bad.” You need to consider the entirety of the effects. While of course estimates vary the cost in human lives and global and local ecosystems will be devastating.
Also, is there any chance we can stop treating science like it is a video game? Humanity does not get 5 research points a turn, and when we get to 25 points we can choose a new technology. Scientific advancement is not predictable that way. One of the projects I’m currently loosely associated with is modifying the genome of arabidopsis to increase the carbon capture in the root systems. The team has been working on it for five to six years. They’re perpetually about two years away from a breakthrough. Even if they had that breakthrough today, to convert the discovery to a widely deployable technology takes anywhere from six to twelve years (this isn’t intended for human consumption, so the lower end of this range is more likely). And this is just a very minor thing. So, yes, while scientific discovery may very well, and are even likely to help, we cannot continue going the way we’re going and hope for the best. Unless we’re willing to accept that a very likely outcome is extreme human misery for large swathes of the planet (tens to hundreds of millions of extra deaths in the near term, to upwards of 1.5 billion extra deaths in the longer term) and catastrophic destruction of many ecosystems.
Also also, is there ANY chance at all of stopping the myth that responding to climate change means global depression?
I mean FFS how many times do we have to prove these things wrong before they are repeated again and again ad nauseam?
We just had a few climate change threads and numerous papers were presented discussing these things (I know, I posted many of them).
You certainly set a high bar for a 16 year old child. She convinces her parents to change their way of life, inconveniences herself by not flying when it will have no net effect, and postpones her education and life to tour the world trying to get political leaders to actually LEAD people and do the right thing. (Which, I point out, is exactly what you complain about with politicians in regards to nuclear power plant development.) The fact that she has not accomplished anything “tangible” might have to do with the fact that the only power she has is to speak out and raise awareness by shaming adults and calling on the next generation to do better.
If I just wanted to poke the bear, I would ask what “tangible” results have the Hong Kong protesters gotten…not being machine-gunned down yet? That is the kind of line Trump uses; He likes heroes that don’t get taken prisoner. But I think people that are honest will say those kinds of statements are low-brow, inflammatory and just flat out disgusting.
The truth is that both Greta and the protesters deserve recognition; The protesters for risking their lives for more democratic freedom (which we both see as preferable to more totalitarian forms of government); And Greta for telling the world that there is a clear and present danger to the world that will not go away if we just ignore it. Both will take far longer than a year to accomplish (as your 10 year timeline acknowledges)… but the premise of the cover is “who has contributed the most to awareness in the last 12 months”. And it is a publicity thing, because of course it is. Will a picture of Greta sell more copies of Time or protest photos? That’s what this “honor” really comes down to.
So yeah, you have your priorities and opinions; Other people’s differ. Why not just offer support for your choice without trying to bash the opposing view?
A Starbucks, in a major East-Coast city.
Time’s Person (Entity?) of the Year is the entity that “wields the most influence” for the year.
So it’s a stupidly undefinable designation that is not (originally, at least) meant to be some sort of honor. Just a designation.
Time really needs to clarify what they wish to convey, because this designation is often seen as some sort of Goodness badge. Hence the outrage when it goes to a dope; the confusion when it goes to someone who may not have influenced much of anything.
It would be difficult to assign Person of the Year to anyone but the sitting US President, every year, if there were any strict compliance with Time’s stated definition.
So arguing about any other entity getting the designation seems kind of silly to me. None qualify except political leaders if by “influence” we mean actual effect on the status quo (though an entity might indirectly influence a political leader to effect a given result). WRT Greta Thunberg in particular, I’d be surprised if she influenced any Deniers to stop denying, or any Alarmists to alarm more urgently. She’s just a better polar bear.
Putting a psychologically deranged political puppet on the cover of anything is detrimental to any society. They might as well have put Hitler on the cover.
When I was younger “climate change” was called WEATHER. It’s what this planet DOES! It’s part of natures process.
And any brainless political puppet who spouts lies about how mankind controls acts of nature is nothing more than an extreme danger to the world.
Lunatics spouting lies, deception, and dangerous ideals used to be removed from society and put into mental institutions. Now they are put on pedestals and worshiped.
I guess the lunatics are running the asylum now.