[dohboi]

Well put, dis!

[careinke]

Why do I bother to even talk, I wonder? Read the message directly above yours. The climate changes all the time, and is in a 15,000 year warming trend, since the Ice Age. Not only does that not prove the AGW theory, it's completely normal, and evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW.

Why do I even write, did I say AGW?

[Revi]

I think Kaiser is the smartest denier I have ever encountered. I agree that at 350 ppm we were within the boundaries of natural fluctuation, but we are at over 400 now, and there's no end in sight. The only thing that might save us is peak oil. Maybe it will keep us from burning the planet up. Maybe...

[KaiserJeep]

Amazingly, pstarr we agree upon that much, resource depletions are increasingly apparent in all walks of life. What happens next is the question. Unfortunately, for most of the 7.4+ billions of humans, cheap FF's have enabled a huge population increase. I think the Third World is now the most vulnerable to shortages of energy and materials, as they are already resting on the razor's edge of living/dying. The developed nations will still have plenty of hardships, but much lower casualties. In the USA they claim that 40% of our food is wasted - enough to feed another 150,000,000 people. A safety margin, if you will.

[ralfy]

Just the fact that he confuses CC with AGW shows that my decision to put him in my ignore list makes a lot of sense.

[jedrider]

Just the fact that he confuses CC with AGW shows that my decision to put him in my ignore list makes a lot of sense.

I agree with the ignore list. However, it seems we are dealing with ACC (Abrupt Climate Change). This sends the chills down my back, that within a decade, a huge increase in temperatures can really devastate our living arrangement, not to mention our food supply and our forests.

[KaiserJeep]

Just the fact that he confuses CC with AGW shows that my decision to put him in my ignore list makes a lot of sense.

I never said that. I said that climate is constantly changing, and never static. AGW is an untested hypothesis.

[dohboi]

The long, long paleo-record, for one thing, provides a vast testing ground for GW theory, and it confirms it at every turn.

But of course kj's whole position is total bs. Using the same argument, we would have to dismiss as mere 'hypothesis' pretty much everything we know about evolution and astrophysics, to name just two that come to mind.

[dohboi]

"It is irrational for KJ to ignore/deny anthropogenic climate change. Human greenhouse gas release is a real"

Thanks for that.

We will see how things play out.

Timing is always hard to predict.

We know that resource limits and consequences of GW will become more and more problematic to more and more people going forward. Probably it will depend on which one hits you as to which one you will conclude is the bigger problem.

[Revi]

I think we are dealing with a "triple crisis" to borrow a phrase from John Howe. He put it succinctly that we are hitting peak oil, peak people and a peak in climate forcing all at around the same time. I agree with him that we needed to do some rationing and we might have been able to transition much easier. Unfortunately we have squandered the resources and are now going to have to pay the piper. 400 ppm is very unusual. It hasn't happened in something like 3.5 million years. We are going to see consequences. Humans weren't around the last time we were at this level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4w2KPQEHys

[dohboi]

We may be near the peak in climate forcing (or not), but we are nowhere near the point of greatest impact of that forcing.

[Plantagenet]

We may be near the peak in climate forcing (or not), but we are nowhere near the point of greatest impact of that forcing.

Climate forcing will continue to increase as long as CO2 and CH4 continue to build up in the atmosphere. Currently CO2 is going up ca. 3.5 ppm per year

[jedrider]

It's clear that it's going to happen in the life time of some of us. It's clear that it is going to be severe. Maybe, it should be clear that we have only 13 years of normalcy left. Does that make me an optimist? That's a good timeline even though for many of us that is NOT going to change anything we do significantly. That long-term life insurance policy could be debatable cause I doubt you'll be able to collect. It could be that as a society we start pulling apart at the seams. Yes, multiple concurrent shocks to the system will surely bring us a lot of social chaos. We are back to where we were 10 years ago, determining how to survive a crumbling society when it happens. Right now, my society is on a building spurt in silicon valley. Chinese money will be invested in silicon valley until we are flooded out. What other choice would there be?

[dohboi]

"Climate forcing will continue to increase as long as CO2 and CH4 continue to build up in the atmosphere. Currently CO2 is going up ca. 3.5 ppm per year"

Good point. I guess I meant that, if crash comes soon, we will likely see a diminution in the amount of new CO2 and methane introduced into the system. Though of course ANY increase in CO2 and other ghg emissions will increase forcing.

But:

1) it takes some decades for the majority of the forcing to be felt, so we are just beginning to feel something like the full effects of the heating from the CO2 emitted toward the end of the last century (and before).

2) Some carbon cycle feed backs seem to have already kicked in, so it is pretty certain that effects from these feedbacks will continue to heat the planet for a number of centuries at least, even if we ceased all further ghg emissions now.

[litesong]

In the USA they claim that 40% of our food is wasted - enough to feed another 150,000,000 people. A safety margin, if you will.

B-b--but-but-but what about my potato chips. I know... I know. The ice cream & the frozen meat will be gone because the refrigerator won't run & the chocolate candy will melt because there ain't gonna be no more A/C. We don't have enough property to grow more 'an about a month's worth of tomatoes & string beans. B-b--but-but-but what about my potato chips.

[ritter]

I guess I meant that, if crash comes soon, we will likely see a diminution in the amount of new CO2 and methane introduced into the system. Though of course ANY increase in CO2 and other ghg emissions will increase forcing.

Unfortunately, if things crash, I think there is an equal chance we revert to burning the cheapest, dirtiest fuels we can grub out of the ground.

[jedrider]

In the USA they claim that 40% of our food is wasted - enough to feed another 150,000,000 people. A safety margin, if you will.

B-b--but-but-but what about my potato chips. I know... I know. The ice cream & the frozen meat will be gone because the refrigerator won't run & the chocolate candy will melt because there ain't gonna be no more A/C. We don't have enough property to grow more 'an about a month's worth of tomatoes & string beans. B-b--but-but-but what about my potato chips.

When the plentiful food system breaks down then that is the end of the age of optimism, for certain. That will keel over the whole financial edifice. We won't become a nation of vegetarians willingly! Probably about 40% of the nations agriculture is at risk between drought and floods just by extrapolating what we are already experiencing. Then, what about this 'abrupt' climate change: What does that do?

Anyway, the fact that we actually do indeed have a world wide network of food distribution means that SOME places will be able to increase their harvests, such as currently, the EU and Russia. Doesn't 'abrupt climate change' break that, too? Cold places become warm (good) and then, too hot (bad).

[litesong]

When the plentiful food system breaks down then that is the end......

The only food that provides more calories than calories it takes to produce is the potato. Not sure what that means. It may mean that potatoes may be the only food to be mass produced & able to be delivered to people economically. Other food may have to be produced locally...very locally. No strawberries in the winter. Best strawberries (& ears of corn) are produced in Washington state.....best boysenberries, too. Best huckleberries & blueberries are above 4000 feet in the Washington Cascade mountains.

[careinke]

I guess I meant that, if crash comes soon, we will likely see a diminution in the amount of new CO2 and methane introduced into the system. Though of course ANY increase in CO2 and other ghg emissions will increase forcing.

Unfortunately, if things crash, I think there is an equal chance we revert to burning the cheapest, dirtiest fuels we can grub out of the ground.

I will be using renewable biomass, sequestering carbon, and improving the soil at the same time.

[careinke]

When the plentiful food system breaks down then that is the end......

The only food that provides more calories than calories it takes to produce is the potato. Not sure what that means. It may mean that potatoes may be the only food to be mass produced & able to be delivered to people economically. Other food may have to be produced locally...very locally. No strawberries in the winter. Best strawberries (& ears of corn) are produced in Washington state.....best boysenberries, too. Best huckleberries & blueberries are above 4000 feet in the Washington Cascade mountains.

The vast majority of food produced needs to be produced locally in order to have any chance of being sustainable, much less regenerative. We are closer than you think, I believe around 80% of the food today is produced and consumed "locally."