Is all this recent Climate Change stuff pure hysteria?

[Subduction Zone]

"Past research into the possible impact of climate change on agriculture has produced wildly varying results, with almost any set of consequences—positive or negative—seemingly possible. At one extreme, it has been estimated that climate change might reduce agricultural productivity so much as to cut the value of agricultural land by almost 20 percent. At the other extreme, the outcome might be increased productivity that pushes the value of agricultural land up by almost 30 percent."

Deschênes, Olivier, and Michael Greenstone. 2007. The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from Agricultural Output and Random Fluctuations in Weather. American Economic Review 97(2): 354–385.

http://econ.ucsb.edu/~olivier/DG_AER_2007.pdf

Yes, in some places climate change will improve production. That was about production in the U.S.. Canada will probably do even better. But there are many places where the climate will get worse.

 

[Valjean]

I can remember being a young boy in primary school learning, in great scientific detail, about what climate change is, why it is happening and the role that human beings play in causing it.

This was something like circa 1998.

Since then, there have been modest yet genuine attempts to rectify the issue through carbon emissions schemes, changes to the materials corporations use, et al. It's modest, but progress has been made.

On the other hand, apocalyptic visions for the outcome of our impact of the world and a complete exaggeration of how we are all in imminent danger seems to have exploded into the forefront of the international media this year.

Personally, I think the biggest problem humans face today is that too many people in the West get off on being outraged.

"Past research into the possible impact of climate change on agriculture has produced wildly varying results, with almost any set of consequences—positive or negative—seemingly possible. At one extreme, it has been estimated that climate change might reduce agricultural productivity so much as to cut the value of agricultural land by almost 20 percent. At the other extreme, the outcome might be increased productivity that pushes the value of agricultural land up by almost 30 percent."

Deschênes, Olivier, and Michael Greenstone. 2007. The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from Agricultural Output and Random Fluctuations in Weather. American Economic Review 97(2): 354–385.

http://econ.ucsb.edu/~olivier/DG_AER_2007.pdf

I think you're seeing only a narrow sliver of climate change's effect. We need biodiversity, but we're collapsing all the biosystems that support it.

 

[Salvador]

And? Does that mitigate close on 200,000 additional deaths attributed to climate change last year?

Does that mitigate the extinction of species?

I guess not knowing the people who died must make it ok for some people to make excuses because the facts dont agree with them

I live in a mid continental climate where I've experienced extreme cold as well as extreme heat. I've had to save my younger brother from hypothermia. I've also broke out a car window in order to save a dog from heat exhaustion. I myself suffered from a weather related accident where I fell on ice and injured my tail bone.

 

[Salvador]

I think you're seeing only a narrow sliver of climate change's effect. We need biodiversity, but we're collapsing all the biosystems that support it.

The human colonization of Mars, increasing living space, is the ultimate solution for getting rid of over-crowded places here on Earth as well as getting rid of the Earth's excess greenhouse gases.

There should be no worries about high levels of atmospheric CH4 and C02 due to industrialization or overpopulation, because these greenhouse gases could be sent away to Mars where they'd transform Mars into a warmer planet; this methane and carbon dioxide would help transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Any excessive levels of these green house gases could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

The first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) is the deployment of a magnetic shield that protects Mars against the solar wind stripping of its atmosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

In addition to CH4 (methane) and C02 (carbon dioxide), some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost just approximately $500 billion yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than some few thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) would create many high tech jobs, and save planet Earth by way of transferring away its harmful global warming green house gases to Mars where these gases would be beneficial as they'd contribute to forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparble to Earth's biosphere. This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there should be dubbed the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars". I'd favor the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars" instead of the Green New Deal that'd only be focused on Earth alone.

 

[ChristineM]

I live in a mid continental climate where I've experienced extreme cold as well as extreme heat. I've had to save my younger brother from hypothermia. I've also broke out a car window in order to save a dog from heat exhaustion. I myself suffered from a weather related accident where I fell on ice and injured my tail bone.

Interesting but what has it to do with climate change?

I see your area has shown relitively little temperature rise.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

More weather-related deaths happen when the weather is too cold rather than weather-related deaths happening from the weather being too hot.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

You're mistaking weather for climate (hence switching the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change").

 

[exchemist]

Win? Are we playing a game of some sort?

From your responses, apparently so.

You have yet to engage with anyone on this thread on the science, or even the politics. Most of your replies seem to be little more than flippant or sarcastic remarks.

You started this thread, but one begins to wonder why.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That ignores the deaths from increased severity of storms in general and other sources of death arising from climate change. For example climate change will increase the number of crop failures which in poor countries would lead to higher rates of starvation. That will not show up in the cherry picked data that you linked.

increased malarial zones and the coming military struggles likely over water and arable land will be big, too.

 

[Heyo]

The human colonization of Mars, increasing living space, is the ultimate solution for getting rid of over-crowded places here on Earth as well as getting rid of the Earth's excess greenhouse gases.

Colonies will never be a solution to over population. The cost (and willingness) of transporting huge numbers of people (we are talking billions here) are, and will be for a long time, prohibitive.
The same holds true for transporting CO2 and CH4. At a current rate of about $ 2 million per kg, imagine what can be done with the same money here on earth to prevent production of the stuff or even capture and storage.
Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of space exploration and I think we should do much more in that direction. But it won't help us solve the named problems here on Earth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Win? Are we playing a game of some sort?

You are, a dangerous one for you - not me. Because you are young, you, your children, and your grandchildren will pay the price for willful ignorance and faith-based thinking. As @columbus mentioned, our generation is fine if they have the means to move if necessary, afford water if expensive, afford air conditioning or heating if needed, etc.. Can you and your progeny say the same with confidence? It's the people who cannot afford these things if needed who will pay the most.

I'd like you to try to remember this thread for the rest of your life. Please take a moment to consider your climate denial. I want you to remember your current opinion at this age when your. I also hope that you have published it under a name that your offspring will find in the future. They should know what part their father and grandfather played in their predicament. My children already know that none of this was their father's fault. They will blame people like you..

You won't win with willful ignorance, and you won't win with apathy.

He won't win period. His fate will be grim.

People can only cry wolf so many times before they become ignored and disregarded.

You, too. All of you. A pox on your family for your willingness to take that risky and ignorant position that will hurt so many..May you offspring find this post someday and understand what their ancestor believed, and how it harmed them.

That's a dangerous ideology when the projected outcome could cost lives.

That isn't a factor in the calculations of climate deniers. They're blithely willing to risk so many lives. I guess it shows how angry I am about the gross stupidity of these people. I'm sorry that so many people that knew better and their descendents will pay for this rabid ignorance, but don't mind that they and theirs will pay.

Of course, there's always the possibility that if things happen the way that qualified opinion suggests it will, it will probably be too late to do anything about it...but oh, well.

You and I will be gone by then. Good people and animals will pay a price, which is unjust, but so will the climate deniers and their offspring. I have no problem with that. Sins of the father. I just hope that they have left permanent records on the Internet for their progeny to find, so that they can know just who did this to them - their father or grandfather.

 

[Salvador]

Colonies will never be a solution to over population. The cost (and willingness) of transporting huge numbers of people (we are talking billions here) are, and will be for a long time, prohibitive.
The same holds true for transporting CO2 and CH4. At a current rate of about $ 2 million per kg, imagine what can be done with the same money here on earth to prevent production of the stuff or even capture and storage.
Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of space exploration and I think we should do much more in that direction. But it won't help us solve the named problems here on Earth.

The likelihood of human extinction is greater for humans being a single-planetary species than the likelihood of human extinction happening if humans were a multi-planetary species.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The likelihood of human extinction is greater for humans being a single-planetary species than the likelihood of human extinction happening if humans were a multi-planetary species.

But we're not, are we? And how soon do you think that might become reality?

 

[Heyo]

The likelihood of human extinction is greater for humans being a single-planetary species than the likelihood of human extinction happening if humans were a multi-planetary species.

That is a good reason for space exploration.
But not overpopulation on Earth or the possibility to transport climate active gases.

 

[Salvador]

But we're not, are we? And how soon do you think that might become reality?

"In April 2018, the B612 Foundation reported "It’s 100 per cent certain we’ll be hit [by a devastating asteroid], but we’re not 100 per cent certain when. "

Harper, Paul (28 April 2018). "Earth will be hit by asteroid with 100% CERTAINTY – space experts warn – EXPERTS have warned it is "100pc certain" Earth will be devastated by an asteroid as millions are hurling towards the planet undetected". Daily Star. Retrieved 28 April 2018.

Fossil records indicate at least five mass-extinction events happening in the last 500 million years, this means a mass-extinction event occurs on average once every ca. 100 million years. The most recent mass extinction event having occurred ca. 65 million years ago; this would mean there is more than even chance of another mass extinction event occurring before 35 million years from now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"In April 2018, the B612 Foundation reported "It’s 100 per cent certain we’ll be hit [by a devastating asteroid], but we’re not 100 per cent certain when. "

Harper, Paul (28 April 2018). "Earth will be hit by asteroid with 100% CERTAINTY – space experts warn – EXPERTS have warned it is "100pc certain" Earth will be devastated by an asteroid as millions are hurling towards the planet undetected". Daily Star. Retrieved 28 April 2018.

Fossil records indicate at least five mass-extinction events happening in the last 500 million years, this means a mass-extinction event occurs on average once every ca. 100 million years. The most recent mass extinction event having occurred ca. 65 million years ago; this would mean there is more than even chance of another mass extinction event occurring before 35 million years from now.

That is not how odds work. Just because we have not been hit in the last 65 million years does not mean that the odds go up.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But we're not, are we? And how soon do you think that might become reality?

Yep.

I doubt we will ever escape our solar system much less terraform a planet say like Mars or Venus. Once the Sun goes red giant it'll be all over. Humans will be no more.

 

[Heyo]

Yep.

I doubt we will ever escape our solar system much less terraform a planet say like Mars or Venus. Once the Sun goes red giant it'll be all over. Humans will be no more.

We've got around 4.5 billion years before Red Giant phase, maybe 2 billion before Earth becomes inhospitable. We went from horse and cart to walking on the moon in 200 years. We might not get to the stars in 200 years but within the next 2 million years we will - with a 99.9% margin to still do it on time.
There is a small chance that a big asteroid will do us in - and a big chance our own stupidity will do it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We've got around 4.5 billion years before Red Giant phase, maybe 2 billion before Earth becomes inhospitable. We went from horse and cart to walking on the moon in 200 years. We might not get to the stars in 200 years but within the next 2 million years we will - with a 99.9% margin to still do it on time.
There is a small chance that a big asteroid will do us in - and a big chance our own stupidity will do it.

Well looking out at the universe, we don't discern any type of activity that would suggest any species out there would have Interstellar travel capability. Given the age of the universe already, it kind of makes you wonder if that is even really possible.

 

[Heyo]

Well looking out at the universe, we don't discern any type of activity that would suggest any species out there would have Interstellar travel capability. Given the age of the universe already, it kind of makes you wonder if that is even really possible.

That it hasn't been done yet is not a good argument that it can't be done. Think about how often you'd have been wrong.
And we already know that there is no glass dome at least as far out as the Heliopause.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, in some places climate change will improve production. That was about production in the U.S.. Canada will probably do even better. But there are many places where the climate will get worse.

Has "our actions are turning places that aren't America into unlivable hellholes" ever been a persuasive argument to Americans?