[Tanada]

So let me get this straight, Alpine climates and Tundra climates that are well studied today should not be used for projections of future climates even though paleoclimate studies show they were clement for mammals?

[dohboi]

Just that in previous mass extinction events, the existence of such isolated sanctuaries (if they were such) did not prevent 70% of terrestrial life (including nearly all larger complex organisms), from dying off.

[vtsnowedin]

"The sub culture of doom warriors here browse the internet and copy and paste links and claim to be learned and objective. They sit down every day and search exactly those topics and studies..."

So on the one hand a group of posters (let's drop the nomenclature for now) who are constantly citing scientific studies, while on the other hand you have a group of posters that just state their biases, and make unsupported accusations to the other group of (ironically) confirmation bias, when they are not simply making unsupported 'arguments from incredulity.' http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

I'm pretty sure that, in other contexts, since you are a pretty sharp fellow, you would say that it was the first group of posters who had the edge on the latter group (unless the latter group can come up with a broad set of studies that either disprove the those of the first group, or that come up with alternative findings).

I have, in fact, posted articles that go against a 'doomer' perspective, if you will. When there was good evidence that the Greenland Ice Sheet might be melting a little LESS quickly than thought, I posted that, iirc. I actually would love to find hundreds of articles that say everything is going to be fine, or that feedbacks are never likely to kick in, or that previous studies were too dire and it looks like things are much less bad than predicted.

But pretty much all I can find say the opposite.

If you can find a bunch of legitimate articles that that show that the icecaps aren't melting or that global temperatures aren't increasing or that past extinctions (which showed CO2 increases much slower than today's) didn't wipe out most life on the planet....

IF you can find a number of legit articles from legit sources like this, please, please post them.

I for one will be ecstatically delighted.

But if you can't, then you can't accuse us of selection bias or confirmations bias, you should apologize to us for falsely accusing us of the same, and you should...cease and desist.

Have a nice day!

(It should be pointed out that, in my case at least, I hardly represent the doomiest voice available, even among academics/scientists. Guy McPherson famously has said that total human extinction is inevitable within, what is it now, 16 years? I certainly don't make anything close to that claim.)

As I'm poster immediately above this post I assume you are talking to me.What I posted is fact and I made no analysis of it's meaning or drew any conclusions from it. While we might in a civilized way discuss what those facts bring to the argument your labeling me as a denier does not change the facts or win any arguments.

[Tanada]

Just that in previous mass extinction events, the existence of such isolated sanctuaries (if they were such) did not prevent 70% of terrestrial life (including nearly all larger complex organisms), from dying off.

Actually mass extinction events are a measure sea life extinction, we don't actually know a heck of a lot about land life in the first few because land life was kind of sparse. We do know that when the KT event took place 65 MM/ybp the megafauna dinosaurs had already been in serious decline for millions of years. The biggest issue is the further back you go the less precise your dating gets, duration of extinction events are variously presumed to be near instant (the KT event) to lasting up to tens of thousands or even millions of years as the suite of species transitioned from one set of marine fossils to another.

Cid likes to point to the PETM of 55 Million ybp. Conditions at the start of the PETM were already quite a bit warmer than today, and they ended up warmer still,

Much of our information on past climates comes from the composition of sediments and the shells of marine organisms, which take up chemical substances from seawater as they grow. Because seawater chemistry is partly controlled by temperature, sediments and fossil shells retain a signature of the ambient temperatures under which they formed. Such signatures tell us that during the PETM, temperatures rose rapidly over approximately 6,000 years, and then gradually cooled to near-background levels over the next 150,000–200,000 years. Warming was not uniform across the globe: sea surface temperatures increased by ~6 °C at high latitudes and ~4 °C at low latitudes, and deep-water temperatures increased by ~8 °C at high latitudes and ~6 °C at low latitudes. On land, temperatures increased by ~5 °C in the middle latitudes and by ~3 °C near the equator. Evidence for changes in precipitation is mixed: some studies show a dryer climate during the peak warmth of the PETM, whereas others suggest that rainfall increased. This may demonstrate that the impact of warming on precipitation patterns was localized, with different regions showing a range of effects.

Well what about all life being wiped out by such a hothouse world where terrestrial temperature averages hit their all time high of 23 C globally?

Mammals underwent profound evolutionary and biogeographic changes at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary. Three groups that incorporate many modern mammal species appeared suddenly at this time: Artiodactyla, which includes deer, camels and cows; Perissodactyla, which includes horses and rhinoceroses; and Primates, which includes monkeys, gorillas and humans. These groups probably originated in Asia and then rapidly dispersed to Europe and North America, all within the space of a few thousand years. It seems likely that movement between continents occurred over high-latitude land bridges (such as Greenland or the currently submerged land bridge under the Bering Strait), which only became warm enough to access during the PETM. A number of more ancient Paleocene mammals also went extinct at this time.

The best-known record of mammalian evolution throughout this interval, and indeed for much of the Cenozoic, comes from the Western Interior of North America. In the Bighorn and Clarks Fork basins of Wyoming (Fig. 3), sediments that were deposited on ancient flood plains record in great detail environmental change across the PETM. Mammal fossils recovered from this interval not only show the rapid first appearances of the artiodactyls, perissodactyls and primates in this region, but also demonstrate that some types of mammal became smaller during the PETM. Fossils of the now-extinct ground-dwelling herbivores Ectocion and Copecion from the PETM interval are reconstructed as approximately half the weight of those before and after it, and several other mammal groups that survived the PETM show the same pattern. The earliest members of the artiodactyls, perissodactyls and primates were also much smaller than their immediate descendants. Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been shown in laboratory experiments to reduce leaf digestibility and nutritional value for herbivores, which results in slower growth rates. The higher concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases during the PETM therefore seems like a better explanation for mammalian dwarfing than the increase in temperature itself.

Well looky there, some species died out and other species proliferated with extreme rapidity!

The facts are all in evidence and have been published about hundreds, if not thousands of times. There is no mystery, if we set off a PETM like warming event a great many people and other animals and many plants will die. That is not the same thing as guaranteed world wide extinction of everything bigger than a small insect, or a promise than any particular species will or will not go extinct. The simple fact of the matter is humans have greatly spread plant life from every micro climate zone to many other locations to the point that quite a few of them have been labeled invasive in the last couple decades. In effect we have scattered seeds and mature plants all over heck and back, which provides the opportunity for something to thrive in whatever climate conditions we arrive at.

Just as one minor example, I grew up not to far from the tiny town of Azalea, Michigan. The town was named that because a guy with a greenhouse imported Azalea seedlings and raised them until they were a couple feet tall before selling them to people for landscaping. You can still find them scattered all over Monroe county from the shore of Lake Erie west at least 50 miles. They do not do terribly well in Michigan right now because they are broad leaf evergreens that get massive frost and freeze damage in the winter. The first time I visited Washington D.C. I was shocked to discover that Azalea plants grow into bonified trees in the climate from the mid south on down into the tropics. I had never seen one bigger than three feet high up until then in Michigan, and most of those died within a decade of being planted from random cold snaps in winter.

However, say Cid is right and we flip the climate over hard to PETM standards making Michigan sub tropical year around, like Florida is today. Most of the trees living in Michigan today do not do well in the Tropics, they need four seasons and cold weather to live a healthy long life. But all those poor stunted Azalea bushes ornamentally planted all over Monroe County would thrive in that climate. Not only that they would be able to mature to the reproductive stage and spread their seeds to increase their degree of ground cover. Some of the southern pines scattered here and there around the state would do the same. The first effect will be a massive die off of the plants not suited for the 23 C average world, but immediately following that will be a burst of massive growth as plants adapted to better live in the new conditions come to dominate the landscape.

Will that world support 7 Billion plus humans? Not in the short term, because in the short term the weather will be wildly unpredictable until the new climate regime settles fully into place. The Greenland Ice Sheet alone would keep things hard to predict for several decades as it melted under that hothouse level temperature scheme. Rain patterns will be severely disrupted and changed leading to droughts or floods or alternating both. All of that will serve to disrupt food production and the world does not store years of supplies as we once did. My parents survived the Great Depression partly due to the fact that most people outside of the truly desperate had some sort of food storage good for months to years. Modern folks at least in the USA rarely have more than about 14 days worth of food on the shelf or in the freezer. A real disruption in the global food supply would lead to a real famine where millions or even billions would really die.

Getting back towards the topic I even concede that perhaps every mammal bigger than 20 pounds that lives between 35 degrees north and 35 degrees south latitude close to sea level would die from WTD boiling in its skin. That would take out a good sized swath of the USA population assuming they could not or would refuse to move north.

So? Generally everyone around here admits happily or otherwise the Earth has a lot of people living on it today. If the worst case 23 C world suddenly comes upon us probably half of them would die within a week because we simply can not move that many people that fast even if everyone wanted too and cooperated.

What the heck say the limits were overnight doom 23 C and it extends from 50 North to 50 South, that takes out the most populated portion of Canada and all of the USA south of Alaska. It also takes out China, Korea, India, Africa and all of Europe south of London or about Warsaw. I am dead, dohboi is dead. Putin is alive and well as is Queen Elizabeth II, unless they were unlucky enough to have been on vacation somewhere far south. What do the survivors do? One thing they do not do is march themselves into the death zone just so they can go extinct like some people in the Voluntary Extinction Movement want them too. The people in the survivable territories still have to face all those years of wild weather until the climate settles down, and a good number of them will die from those disruptions.

Just for giggles assume everyone outside of the city of Fairbanks, Alaska and say 100 miles around the city center dropped dead from mysterious magic right now. There are only about 25,000 humans in that circle. Does our species go extinct? Maybe, but not likely. The thing is we are spread from the Geographic south pole to the shores of the Arctic Ocean. There are nearly 7,400,000,000 of us wandering around on this globe. The odds of eliminating enough of us to prevent the survival of the species is very low. Even countries like Poland that were run over three times by massive armies within a 7 year period only lost about 15 percent of its population. Germany during the 30 years war was a massive war zone for literally 30 years, yet well over half the population survived. Humans are incredibly resilient and adaptable animals, exactly the kind of generalist species that does best during an extinction level event.

[ralfy]

In your head it is. Not in mine. The truth? In a field of beautiful dreams.....

This paragraph I wrote needs repeating. We see the damage we have wrought and so dreadfully misinterpret our vulnerability. Our planet is not in peril. We are.

When any species is in overshoot and approaches collapse it becomes the most vulnerable component in the eco system, this is not true for just humans. It is an ecological reality. As an example. When moose or deer or lemmings experience a popualtion explosion and go into overshoot they severely deplete their preferred forage and then mill through lesser forage virtually stripping the under story of forests. At the peak of overshoot one looks at the forest under story and sees all the damage the moose have done and all the plant species under stress. It looks like these plant species are the ones endangered not the thousands of moose in overshoot. This is where we are now with human overshoot. We are focussing on all the natural ecosystems that we have put under stress and see them all as vulnerable. It can't possibly be the 8 billion humans, so abundant, are vulnerable after all the damage and hubris we have caused. But we get this narrative all wrong. The minute consequences start correcting human overshoot, from that moment native ecosystems start to heal. The minute the moose population collapses the forest starts to regenerate. Within 10 years the forest under story is once again lush. As a first step in explaining this new orientation you have to recognize that a species in overshoot standing before a collapse is the most vulnerable component in the ecosystem. Always has been. Always will be.

Except that for many decades "minute consequences" did not "[correct] human overshoot."

[ralfy]

Why we have such a complex dynamic being reduced to sweeping visions of doom? The sub culture of doom warriors here browse the internet and copy and paste links and claim to be learned and objective. They sit down every day and search exactly those topics and studies that reinforce their already fixed opinions, in fact they start to specifically search only the most extreme positions because their fixed positions of our civilization spiraling down the toilet has to seek out ever more dramatic forecasts and predictions.

These folks are like clams. They are isolated in their cyber shells, they are filter feeders, they filter out the most extreme positions and eject these sweeping visions of doom out of their anal sphincters and spew these excretions all over this site in the form of link after link of guaranteed, bonified and certain doom and extinction coming our way.

A peak behind the cyber wall reveals their true identity

My understanding is that the "complex dynamic" involves a few negative feedback loops, with some causing more harm than good, and multiple positive feedback loops that overwhelm the former, with some amplifying each other, and several not realized until only recently.

Also, I think the default view is not doom but the opposite, which in turn requires acting like clams.

[Ibon]

As I'm poster immediately above this post I assume you are talking to me.What I posted is fact and I made no analysis of it's meaning or drew any conclusions from it. While we might in a civilized way discuss what those facts bring to the argument your labeling me as a denier does not change the facts or win any arguments.

No worries vts, Dohboi was addressing me not you.

[Ibon]

In your head it is. Not in mine. The truth? In a field of beautiful dreams.....

This paragraph I wrote needs repeating. We see the damage we have wrought and so dreadfully misinterpret our vulnerability. Our planet is not in peril. We are.

When any species is in overshoot and approaches collapse it becomes the most vulnerable component in the eco system, this is not true for just humans. It is an ecological reality. As an example. When moose or deer or lemmings experience a popualtion explosion and go into overshoot they severely deplete their preferred forage and then mill through lesser forage virtually stripping the under story of forests. At the peak of overshoot one looks at the forest under story and sees all the damage the moose have done and all the plant species under stress. It looks like these plant species are the ones endangered not the thousands of moose in overshoot. This is where we are now with human overshoot. We are focussing on all the natural ecosystems that we have put under stress and see them all as vulnerable. It can't possibly be the 8 billion humans, so abundant, are vulnerable after all the damage and hubris we have caused. But we get this narrative all wrong. The minute consequences start correcting human overshoot, from that moment native ecosystems start to heal. The minute the moose population collapses the forest starts to regenerate. Within 10 years the forest under story is once again lush. As a first step in explaining this new orientation you have to recognize that a species in overshoot standing before a collapse is the most vulnerable component in the ecosystem. Always has been. Always will be.

Except that for many decades "minute consequences" did not "[correct] human overshoot."

I agree. Minute consequences have not corrected human overshoot. We are probably at the doorstep of minute changing to major. And during these decades of minute consequences we have done great damage to natural ecosystems and have made our species exponentially far more vulnerable to correction. We remain today very very vulnerable and consequences will certainly disproportionately target humans since the species remaining in natural ecosystems from that day forward will be colonizers of former human habitat.

[Ibon]

My understanding is that the "complex dynamic" involves a few negative feedback loops, with some causing more harm than good, and multiple positive feedback loops that overwhelm the former, with some amplifying each other, and several not realized until only recently.

Also, I think the default view is not doom but the opposite, which in turn requires acting like clams.

During this whole dialogue we haven't been discussing yet those other clams you mention here, the climate change deniers. But their presence has always been here. They frame the polarity that still at this late date hold some of us hostage. It would seem. After all,, Cid accused me of using the same tactics as the climate change deniers, and there is this confusion by many here on my positions because I am obviously not a climate change denier and yet I have been politically incorrect in challenging a number of sacred cows that the extremists here hold so dear.

When I suggested external consequences will be the engine of cultural transition this was perceived as threatening to those who still hold on to using the social and environmental justice meme as the ideological fight required against the climate change deniers. My theory breaks the polarity and this is threatening to those who are still driven by ideology. My suggestion that there is a possibility that we may culturally adapt and persevere after human overshoot and self regulate was also met with vigorous opposition for the same reason.

When I suggested that humans in overshoot are more vulnerable at this point than the remaining natural ecosystems this also is taboo because our focus must remain singularly on the threats to our biosphere and biodiversity and suggesting that humans are at the moment less resilient is contrarian and does not serve the ideological struggle against the climate change deniers.


It has been very fascinating to observe the underlying narratives that still frame the thinking of even those most convinced that they are interpreting data from a purely objective place.

The fact that they are so certain of this and also so certain of our upcoming extinction should of course provide the most obvious clue.

These discussions have been most enjoyable and enlightening and I appreciate the lively discussion.

Regarding Dohboi's claim that I haven't produced any evidence to support my views, this is simply not true. I have from the beginning spoken of possibilities and explored pathways. Some of my ideas are admittedly unorthodox. Some of my ideas are original and do not come from copying and pasting links. Some of my ideas are most likely due for some revision and modification, partially from comments here refuting them and partially waiting for future events to fine tune some of these ideas. By the way, the onus is not on me to give evidence against certainty of extinction. The vast majority of climate change scientists who present alarming data regarding tipping points do not speak of extinction as a certainty.

That is what is great about these discussions, there is exchange and learning going on. For some of us anyway...

[dohboi]

Yes, vt, the quote was from Ib, so the response was to him. Sorry for the confusion.

Ib wrote: "...claim that I haven't produced any evidence to support my views, this is simply not true. I have from the beginning spoken of possibilities and explored pathways..."

Sooo, you are equating imagined "...possibilities and explored pathways..." as evidence.

Apparently we have such different ideas of what constitutes such a basic word as 'evidence' that I'm not really sure that further useful communication is possible? What other very basic words do you have your own 'unorthodox' definitions of? Perhaps you've been living out in the woods a bit too long??

The increasing inconsistency and incoherence of your posts point in the same direction. In one paragraph, you accuse your opponents of being able to only see social and env justice issues--that is issues relating to humans. In another paragraph, you claim your opponents can't even think about anything having to do with humans.

Totally incoherent. Hard to know how to even begin to reply to such utterly blithering gibberish.

Are you on drugs, or something?

T, yes, there were extinctions before terrestrial life evolved. But since you folks are talking about what happens on the tops of bloomin' mountain tops, I kinda assumed we were talking about the extinctions relevant to that. Silly me.

And yes, of course, there are often one or two species that manage to rush in and take over some of the niches left by the many dying species. Those are sometimes called 'weed species.'

Do you see that as some kind of victory for the diversity of life? For jellyfish (for example) to be the only (or one of a very few) complex life form in the oceans? And for cockroaches and perhaps rats to be the only complex life forms on land?

[Ibon]

Yes, vt, the quote was from Ib, so the response was to him. Sorry for the confusion.

Ib wrote: "...claim that I haven't produced any evidence to support my views, this is simply not true. I have from the beginning spoken of possibilities and explored pathways..."

Sooo, you are equating imagined "...possibilities and explored pathways..." as evidence.

Apparently we have such different ideas of what constitutes such a basic word as 'evidence' that I'm not really sure that further useful communication is possible? What other very basic words do you have your own 'unorthodox' definitions of? Perhaps you've been living out in the woods a bit too long??

Dohboi, remember I am on your team. All of the serious feedbacks and tipping points that are discussed here regarding climate change, with the possible exception of an anaerobic atmosphere coming our way soon, I actually take serious and I do not have to provide evidence against them because they are valid threats. I only challenge the most extremist interpretations of this data. Do I need to present evidence about a yet unknown outcome?

[dohboi]

"remember I am on your team"

With friends like these...who needs herpes??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDr5KWRJrVg


"the most extremist interpretations of this data"

"extremist" is of course a very loaded term.

The facts may seem very 'extreme' to you, but they might not be actually 'extremist'

Point out one thing that I have claimed (without misrepresenting it, if you can manage that...thank you) and maybe, just maybe we can start a rational dialogue, if you can manage to not just make up meanings to whatever words you want, and can keep some semblance of a consistent position from one paragraph to the next.

But what am I saying.

You have already admitted that you will basically do anything to get in the end to a conclusion that has a nice smiley face on it, whatever that takes--changing meanings of basic words, misrepresenting constantly the views of others, wildly swinging from one position to its opposition in the space of one paragraph...

Not really even trying to have a coherent conversation with that kind of constant malarkey going on.
Bed time here now.

Sleep tight, all!

[clif]

Do I need to present evidence about a yet unknown outcome?

Yes, if you want the future you posit, to be taken any more seriously, than KJ's space fantasies.

Unless you have something more that you think it is possible to go on, your just positing future fictional fantasies.

Nothing wrong with that if you admit it is all you are doing.

Cornucopias do the same. Whether some new special tech that will save us, or the science isn't final and the earth can accept much more abuse then we currently know of.

No real facts to go on in either case just a trust me.

Nice stories to read but not very applicable to seeing how the actual science is revealing

what possible paths are

THE MOST PROBABLE.

Unless you have a way to do so with the science we currently have enjoy the fiction, but stop attacking others for doing the same. BTW, yes, you have attacked quite a few others for their views here recently.

[ennui2]

All one needs do to get a good handle on the actual future that's emerging is to stop framing things based only on today's projections and look at this acceleration. The predictions keep getting doomier and doomier with every refresh of Google News. Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expecteds.

I don't need to actually plot this out in a graph. I can feel it, intuitively. Every time I pick up more doomy news (which I do without even having to go looking for it), those adjectives keep showing up. So if this keeps up, then we're already in the dreaded AGW feedback loop and for some stupid reason scientists won't start leading the gunsight ahead of the target, so to speak. But I am. I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe ultra-short-term doom ala Cid, but I have a palpable sense of acceleration.

I don't have nearly the same sense of urgency with fossil fuel depletion, which is why I am not really in sync with the remaining hardcore peak-oil doomers.

[vtsnowedin]

All one needs do to get a good handle on the actual future that's emerging is to stop framing things based only on today's projections and look at this acceleration. The predictions keep getting doomier and doomier with every refresh of Google News. Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expecteds. Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expecteds.

I don't need to actually plot this out in a graph. I can feel it, intuitively. Every time I pick up more doomy news (which I do without even having to go looking for it), those adjectives keep showing up. So if this keeps up, then we're already in the dreaded AGW feedback loop and for some stupid reason scientists won't start leading the gunsight ahead of the target, so to speak. But I am. I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe ultra-short-term doom ala Cid, but I have a palpable sense of acceleration.

I don't have nearly the same sense of urgency with fossil fuel depletion, which is why I am not really in sync with the remaining hardcore peak-oil doomers.

But measuring the use of words like "Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expected."is not a valid way to determine the truth. You may be just consuming a media buzz where a theme is deliberately pushed forward and they are using repetition to convince you.
It was Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels that coined the phrase "Tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth".

[clif]

ennui2 you have a set of facts to report here.

The "experts" keep finding their models and scientific tests turn out to be far too conservative compared to the actual outcomes year after year for the most part.

That is a verifiable fact. The IPCC by the time they actually publish their reports have been far outstripped by facts on the ground, and new feedbacks they haven't included in their models.

That to me is admissible as a set of facts for verification.

Do I need to present evidence about a yet unknown outcome?

Is not testable or even verifiable by any models we currently have..

I have from the beginning spoken of possibilities and explored pathways.

Also isn't testable or verifiable.

It's nice reading what people hope will happen, but I'm a little bit more interested in what they EXPECT will happen and why. Why here is very important, because it shows a set of parameters that we can operate within, or possibly need to avoid. A set of probable outcomes and reasons why is a set of possible paths forward to try to work toward. Ways to try to influence people toward a better outcome for humans and the biosphere of the planet, is also something many people might be interested in, and saying until the conditions get bad enough we can do nothing is a recipe for defeat in most things.

I started my set of posts on warlordism because that is the way we as humans for the most part have organized out social/political cultures for the recorded history of the human race. Yes you might be able to point a exception or two, but warlordism has dominated especially in any complex society. So going forward we most probably will need to deal with how warlordism both influences and sometimes inhibits any progress toward mitigation of society around the effects of climate change.

We also need to consider how the current economic conditions, and those possible going forward will have effects also. I personally believe we are currently heading toward another planet wide economic contraction. This contraction like the last one will further undercut the living standards of many many people around the planet as the economic powers that be both governmental and private will try to respond in their own best interests. This might be the turning point to push the planet away from globalism, like the Euro zone are being stressed by Brexit and the Greek dyslexic economy, combined with the Germans profiting off the Euro zone to the detriment of most other countries.

The inability of TIPP and even TPP to get approval will also be interesting. If ever larger trade agreements cannot be approved, the multinational corporation approach to controlling the planets economic system falls apart, and we return to the nation state system where each state fight both politically and sometimes militarily for control over the planets resources. This difference is important when looking to the down slope of the Hubbert curve for oil and other energy resources. If the multinationals are in control, they get to decide where resources they control are allocated, and how they are divided up. If we are back to the nation state style of economics because globalism has collapsed, then the political process becomes more important in the allocation of resources.

In either case military power will be used to capture and control both resources and lanes of transport to get said resources to the areas the warlords need them. This becomes important when the larger states fight for control when the assailable resources are depleted to the point where individual nation states survival are dependent on the control of vital resources.

This is important to the survival of the species because food is one of the most vital of all resources. If controlled by multinational corporations the allocation will be different then when controlled by nation state, and believe me when the resources of food start becoming scarce the nation state will insert their control very rapidly since they have the police and military powers to take control inside their own borders..

Starving others outside the nation will not have any priority at this point. In fact people who advocate for exporting food to peoples who need it for survival won't have much influence when the people inside a nation are limited in their available subsistence. Ne real ethics or morality questions at all, just survival.

This is one situation when I could see India, China and Pakistan looking at their nukes as possible ways to gain more food for their people at the expense of the other.

I do believe the stresses will be economic first; energy and food resources second. The deteriorating climate will be a further stress but most probably not for a couple of decades, unless you live in a drought prone area that relies on the UN for food. Those people are the most vulnerable, and their countries the first to use what ever military options they might have to try to gain the upper hand for their peoples.

I still see this as a decade or more away, because the effects so far, haven't dented the world wide supply option very much at all, and the energy resources are much larger then presented when all available options are considered. However each and all energy options will be used for much further then the climate change best options would warrant. Especially given both the food, natural resource and security needs for those energy options.

Like Ibon says, nothing will change unless we are forced to, and we have too much to burn before that happens, which will unleash far too much damage to the climate in the process. After that we better hope that people who aren't real sociopaths have their hands on the handles of power, but that is doubtful, because that is exactly the type of person who most often reaches for those handles.

[clif]

But measuring the use of words like "Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expected."is not a valid way to determine the truth. You may be just consuming a media buzz where a theme is deliberately pushed forward and they are using repetition to convince you.

Not if it is used by the scientists themselves especially in the research they do.

You try to conflate far to much in that scrambled statement.

Yes if reporters are using the terms, and NOT reporting the scientists use of the terms you have a claim.

However when the scientists are using the terms, even if the reporting of the scientific usage of the terms is by the media, your point then is simply, a talking point of denial.

[vtsnowedin]

But measuring the use of words like "Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expected."is not a valid way to determine the truth. You may be just consuming a media buzz where a theme is deliberately pushed forward and they are using repetition to convince you.

Not if it is used by the scientists themselves especially in the research they do.

You try to conflate far to much in that scrambled statement.

Yes if reporters are using the terms, and NOT reporting the scientists use of the terms you have a claim.

However when the scientists are using the terms, even if the reporting of the scientific usage of the terms is by the media, your point then is simply, a talking point of denial.

I am pointing out (denying if you insist)that the volume of words repeated is not a useful measure of the validity of a theory. Even scientist are often guilty of using hype to promote their work as it leads to funding.
That does not mean the scientist are wrong about their individual work, only that the word count does not prove or disprove it.
If word count was an accurate measure the earth would be flat and five thousand years old.

[clif]

Even scientist are often guilty of using hype to promote their work as it leads to funding.

Not in the research papers they write that have already been funded.

Still pushing that talking point instead of trying to deal with the ACTUAL SCIENCE.

[vtsnowedin]

Even scientist are often guilty of using hype to promote their work as it leads to funding.

Not in the research papers they write that have already been funded.

Still pushing that talking point instead of trying to deal with the ACTUAL SCIENCE.

Word count is not science. And I have never read a research paper that did not say in the conclusions section,
"More research is needed" or words, sometimes very elaborate, to that effect.