Global Warming Has Accelerated and Will Go On for Centuries

[FPLOON]

Uh... Can this also mean that each new generation would be able to adapt more to the ever-changing climate?

Nonetheless, once other alien species from other distant planets come try to take us over, they would be stopped by the power of intense heat and pending dryness!

 

[O maestre]

climate change is undeniable it has been getting warmer since the ice age... duh. the thing I still don't know is how much of an influence mankind has had on this natural process, the earth has gone through several cycles of global warming and cooling throughput it's history.

I know that man can influence the environment greatly, like the whole aerosol crisis, which was actually solved by the UN back when they did stuff without hesitation.

 

[Britishfan]

I said this the better part of ten years ago, but apparently no one was listening to me so I'm going to have to say it again. We are not going to stop climate change; everything we do is going to be too little too late. What we can do is start to plan for it.

In my country "plan for it" means a complete overhaul of flood defence. Unfortunately this won't happen because to many civil servants need to cover their arse (see river dredging). Also we could start planting some vineyards, maybe some olives.

captcha: tea leaf. yes maybe them to.

 

[SexyGarfield]

I'm really not seeing the problem with large climate change/global warming. Well, to be more accurate, I really can't see why people keep kicking up a fuss over it. We'll either adapt to it like everything else on Earth will, or we'll die. Once that's done, the Earth will normalize and something vaguely like us may evolve once more, or something will evolve to take our place as the apex species in the warmer and wetter climate (woo, dinosaurs making a comeback!).

It's really not something to be overly worried about.

Yeah I mean it's just the future of our race, thousands of years of progress, shaping the world around use in a way that no other observed species has ever done, thousands of years of unmatched culture and knowledge. Why would we continue that trend of shaping our enviroment when it clearly isn't working out for us? I can see where you're coming from, we're just a grain of sand on the beach of this universe, philosophy, insight, deep stuff man.

All sarcasm aside I can't understand the nihilism of a stance like that, if all human (or all life as we would take a lot down with us) life is meaningless how can any human life or social construct hold moral/ethical weight? I can kinda understand the fuck it I've got mine let the future deal with this biz, but what your saying is down right unfathomable to me.

And then there's the recent data suggesting that Antarctica is the coldest it's ever been, when it came close to matching a 2010 record of -135.8 Fahrenheit....in July, no less (IIRC it fell 0.5F short of matching the record).

In Antarctica July is the dead of winter, southern hemisphere and all that jazz.

As for the rest of your post I have not really looked into the polar vortex that much as it didn't effect California. However, my state is going through one of the worst droughts since they started keeping records on that stuff. There is a reason most people that care about the subject nowadays have dropped the term global warming and shifted to the term climate change, global warming leads it's self to strawman arguments. The theory behind "global warming" is that there is an overall or "global" trend of warming, because of that weather patterns change and sea level rises. Just because there is an intense snow storm in a region from a long known phenomenon (see polar vortex [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex], it's been around for a while) doesn't change 30+ years of documenting polar melt an rising tide.

 

[Agayek]

All sarcasm aside I can't understand the nihilism of a stance like that, if all human (or all life as we would take a lot down with us) life is meaningless how can any human life or social construct hold moral/ethical weight? I can kinda understand the fuck it I've got mine let the future deal with this biz, but what your saying is down right unfathomable to me.

The short answer: It doesn't.

The long answer: The universe gives no fucks about our opinions or accomplishments. It will continue on with or without us, and we will never be able to affect more than the smallest fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the universe in any meaningful way. Our lives and deaths mean nothing to the sheer totality that is the universe.

That said, we are sapient, and by virtue of that we are not utterly meaningless. Life has weight and meaning because we give it weight and meaning. We like to think that we are important or meaningful, and so, to us, we are important and meaningful. We impose our meaning on the world around us and in doing so, create meaning. And that's enough for pretty much everyone, myself included.

That's all kinda irrelevant to my original post though, which had a very simple point. Namely, we all die eventually. Why kick up a fuss about this particular method? We'll either all die to it, or we'll figure our shit out and then die to something else further down the line. Global warming and climate change are vague and long-term threats, along similar lines as "the heat death of the universe". There's always something like that looming over the horizon, and therefore little reason to worry unduly about the coming one. When it becomes a problem, we'll either die or solve it and then start freaking out about the next looming and implacably advancing problem.

It's both pointless and silly to worry about it because, like many things in life, worrying about does nothing but detract the meaning and weight from your own life.

 

[Silvanus]

So you're willing to ride along on the carbon train until you're specifically forced to stop?

That's... that's like a pastor saying that gays should be allowed to be married, but then refusing to do ceremonies for them until the law is passed in that forces him to do so.

Uhrm... what? No.

I'm willing to take part in certain things for which, as it currently stands, there are few or no good alternatives. Receiving my utilities from utilities companies is an example of this, because I'm not going to build a hydro-electric dam in my back garden (it's not large enough, among other reasons).

However, changing business regulation will have a larger impact by a margin of thousands of percent. The behaviour of a business is far more important than the behaviour of an individual. So, if an environmentalist takes a plane, but also significantly influences policy, they've had a net positive impact, and sneering becomes fairly meaningless.

Skeptics point to a period of 15 years or so to make a dispute with climate models and they're dismissed. But one year of climate is apparently fine for science to say, "I told you so"?

2013 is far from the only year to feature erratic or extreme weather patterns.

As for that 15-year period, that is truly insignificant when it's looked at in context [http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg]. See that miniscule little plateau at the far right, dwarfed by the larger trend? That's the period sceptics point to. You'll notice that there have been other such tiny, temporary plateaus over the last hundred years or so, which haven't indicated the end of the trend whatsoever.

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

While i do believe it's real, i've yet to see any impact where i live in NY state.. in fact it seems colder, not warmer. it's spring and right was a high of 24 degrees today where i live.. where's this warmer i keep hearing about?

 

[SexyGarfield]

Snip

It's nice to know someone can channel the will of the universe to let us know how it feels, frankly I think it was being underrepresented. And your argument of why care about an oncoming train when we will eventually die of old age is a really strong selling point for your views.

 

[The_Darkness]

<link=http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html>Right back at you. Okay, so maybe the word tiny was an exaggeration, but still, see the 14% methane part of that pie chart? That's not even entirely agricultural, since it includes waste management, coal mining and natural gas leaks. And by the second chart - Agriculture is at a total of 14%. Energy, Transport, Industry and Forestry (which are all items that I do actively try to combat with my lifestyle) contribute 75%.

Of course, this is all by weight.

Take the 17% of the 14% (total: 2.4% of all emissions is agricultural methane) and multiply by the fact that methane traps as much as 20x the amount of energy as carbon dioxide in a 100 year period (see: my first link) and suddenly agricultural methane accounts for nearly as much trapped solar energy as fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions.

That's scary and significant.

Hmm... Okay, point taken. <link=http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html>I found this link a to be fairly useful perspective on Agriculture, although I have no idea on where they got their figures. Looks like beef is the main offender - poultry barely registers.

So on the plus side, I do eat poultry more often than beef. On the downside... beef is probably about one meal a week. Damn. Might put some work into reducing that...

 

[ecoho]

ok global warming is a thing, its real, and it will effect everyone. That said all we humans have done is accelerated the process by ,I believe the last figure thrown out was 100 thousand years. This has happened many times in the past and will happen again and again over our planets life. Now should we start preparing for what's to come now? most defiantly. Should we try to fix it? maybe if we can prepare at the same time.

Now just want to share why I think most people say its a myth and why people don't seem to care.

1. the idiots that say "we are killing the earth!" we are not, we cant, and to think we could with anything short of just destroying the whole dam thing by blowing it up deathstar style is foolish.
2. people calling for us to dismantle our current energy structure to use alternatives that are still in the infancy. Now to clarify we should and infact are looking at new energy sources to stop our adding to global warming, but they are far from perfect and many wont show any progress for another 20 or so years not the best thing to just switch to.

 

[HalfTangible]

*sigh*

The world warms up like this all the time. Look at a chart of global temperatures for the last 50 million years instead of the last century and you'll see that there's nothing unusual about the current cycle of global warming. Hell, most species on this planet got their start at temperatures much higher than this, and we just (the geological equivalent of two minutes ago) came out of an ice age. It'd be worrying if we WEREN'T warming.

Furthermore, ignoring the sheer hubris needed to declare humans as the biggest factor in the entire biosphere affecting global temperature, every solution proposed for global warming is either ludicrously expensive and ineffective (see: carbon tax) will probably happen anyway, since it's a good idea for other reasons too (see: fusion) or is not ready for primetime and/or impossible to force (see: the adoption of solar energy).

I'm more worried that the planet will enter a cycle of global cooling (and not even about that, really) Sure, if the world warms up life will be harder, but at least there will still be food.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

oil is truthly the devil's excrement

 

[Strazdas]

You deny that the vast majority of them do these things? OK, bro.

Yes i do. Have any proof to the contrary?

Facebook, infamous environmentalist "scandals" (having a private jet plane is just asking for all of the trouble), failed searching for consistent environmentalists. I literally can't find any. I can't even find any active hippie communes.

I have absolutely no reason to believe they don't do what everyone else does any more than I have reason to believe a yeti is stalking me.

If you're going to be one of those insipid contrarians who expects my "proof" to be an account for literally every environmentalist, please don't. You convince no one if you do that and only further alienate me.

saying "FAcebook" is not proof. do better. Yes, there are some enviromentalist hypocrites. that does not prove that "Vast majority" of them are however. Hippies are not the same as enviromentalist. I am not a hippy, yet i would probably be lumped into enviromentalist type.
Well, if you do not have the proof that most enviromentalists, then maybe you should say things like you know all of them do it?

And since the other guy started listing things about his life i will put myself into the "one of a few million" camp as well.
I do not drive a car. Even though i technically own one, it hasnt left the garage in years. I do use electric tram to get to work. It is run by electricity that was made in nuclear plant. Well, at least till EU forced us to shut it down, and it will again once we Finnish building a replacement. At that point, the electricity running it is completely green. I dont use places. i used places twice in my life. I do use computers. that is because they are more efficient way of doing things and produce no waste. they are also run on electricity, electricity that CAN be made in a green way. Not sure what animal products have to do with enviromentalism. not drinking milk wont magically stop making Co2 or replant oru forests, ect. While i am aware of what happens in slaughterhouses, which is why i often chose my food that come from sources i know when possible. I do not build with lumber. There is very little lumber in my house. Perhpas if you count that wooden spoon i have... I use cement and its variation as well as recycled paper furniture. My heating is centralized and they do use hard fuel for it, which sucks. however that is the only legal way of heating here and is still better than heating locally. I wish they would move to other ways, but i can only do so much in changing the whole countries heating system around. I do advocate alternative energy sources when i can, but im not an eco-terrorist and dont go blowing up their plants. If by chance you meant the cooking place for heaters, then i use electric stove and electric oven, a lot of which is powered by hydro power plant in neighboring city. (i know hydro plants arent enviromentally friendly but its better than hard fuel)

And I usually use blankets or jumpers instead of heaters.

I do use this to a point as well. Usually i try to keep my house at around 18C unless outside is warmer. However if you go into the low temperatures bellow 15C, dont. it starts creating condensation and mold which destroys buildings. its also very unhealthy to inhale. Id rather waste a bit more energy on heating than have to waste far more energy having to rebuild the house in 10 years.

I hear a lot about climate change and how its all our fault, and maybe it is. What can we do? Well put in perspective there's one thing I can think of and thats stop using it as a political weapon.

politics is the only thing that can force everyone to polute less, therefore it being politically involved is important. and we can do a lot. for starters, change the msot poluting sources into less poluting sources, like coal plants into nuclear plants.

For those who don't know, we're currently in a phase called an "icehouse earth." Were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin in as little as 50k years. Also, fun fact, Earth, at the moment, is colder than it has been for about 80% of its history. Historically, for most of its existence, it has been MUCH hotter on average than it is now.

what you forget to mention that that 80% of history, earth had no life on it either. so unless your okay with all life goign extinct there is a reason to try and change that.

Yes, it has accelerated. There won't be any "disastrous" consequences. Some fish will migrate and/or die off, same with some animal species. People buying multimillion dollar beach houses will find themselves underwater in a century or less, and people in KNOWN flood plains will also find themselves underwater more frequently. What about this is disastrous? The earth will not explode, we won't all get obliterated by an asteroid because of global warming. So much sensationalism

is extinction of human life "diastrous" enough for you?

Yeah, about that...

- Climate is stable for 15 years now

Yeah, about that, any proof to show all those thousands of scientists that disagree?

It will continue on with or without us, and we will never be able to affect more than the smallest fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the universe in any meaningful way.
When it becomes a problem, we'll either die or solve it and then start freaking out about the next looming and implacably advancing problem.

That is a very long time. I wouldnt be so brave to as to try and predict that. While obviuosly fiction, its a nice depiction of just how different humans may one day be. and its a very good read if you havent. The Last Question by Asimov [https://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm]

And it already is a problem.

While i do believe it's real, i've yet to see any impact where i live in NY state.. in fact it seems colder, not warmer. it's spring and right was a high of 24 degrees today where i live.. where's this warmer i keep hearing about?

Actually, climat warming likely make palces like New York COLDER first. that is because the GULF current is warming your coast and as a result the weather is warmer. however the melting icecaps are slowing down the current due to clear water entering the stream, which means your coast is heated less and the effects are higher than average world temperature change. however once the current stops the cold peak will happen and it will continue going warmer. this sudden shift up and down will leave plenty of plant life dead as well as animals not used to sudden change.

Hmm... Okay, point taken. <link=http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html>I found this link a to be fairly useful perspective on Agriculture, although I have no idea on where they got their figures. Looks like beef is the main offender - poultry barely registers.

So on the plus side, I do eat poultry more often than beef. On the downside... beef is probably about one meal a week. Damn. Might put some work into reducing that...

that was... interesting. I eat pig mostly so that seems to be on the low offenders list too. A bit offtopic about poultry though. Your profile does not state your gender. If you are a male you may want to rethink that eating habbit though. That is because poultry meat has a lot of female hormones that dont react with male hormones that well. it resuts in low testosterone levels and other chemical unbalances and arent very healthy. For females there is no reaction like that due to both the meat and females having female hormones already. Thats why i moved mostly to pig now when i learn about this. As much as i dont like testosterone effects, i dont like poisoning myself even more.

ok global warming is a thing, its real, and it will effect everyone. That said all we humans have done is accelerated the process by ,I believe the last figure thrown out was 100 thousand years. This has happened many times in the past and will happen again and again over our planets life. Now should we start preparing for what's to come now? most defiantly. Should we try to fix it? maybe if we can prepare at the same time.

Now just want to share why I think most people say its a myth and why people don't seem to care.

1. the idiots that say "we are killing the earth!" we are not, we cant, and to think we could with anything short of just destroying the whole dam thing by blowing it up deathstar style is foolish.
2. people calling for us to dismantle our current energy structure to use alternatives that are still in the infancy. Now to clarify we should and infact are looking at new energy sources to stop our adding to global warming, but they are far from perfect and many wont show any progress for another 20 or so years not the best thing to just switch to.

If we managed to acellerate it by 100.000 years in the short span of less than 100 years, who is to say we cannot do the opposite and decelerate it by god knows how long in those 100.000 we would win? And while its not going to kill "Earth" it could definatelly kill "life" on it. As far as alternatives, sorry, but nuclear power is not in its infancy. its the safest and most powerful energy source we know. its been used for over 60 years now. Or, say, the well used wind power. I can udnerstand the toxicity of solar panels and the untested tidal wave power arguments. but there are much less emission alternatives, especially compared to hard fuel which is the most harmful (coal, wood, ect). Hell, how about we go around getting some H3 off the moon and do that reaction. Or Thorium reactors? yet those are ignored ideas it seems.

Sure, if the world warms up life will be harder, but at least there will still be food.

granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.

 

[the doom cannon]

is extinction of human life "diastrous" enough for you?

This is exactly what I mean by "so much sensationalism"

 

[tangoprime]

For those who don't know, we're currently in a phase called an "icehouse earth." Were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin in as little as 50k years. Also, fun fact, Earth, at the moment, is colder than it has been for about 80% of its history. Historically, for most of its existence, it has been MUCH hotter on average than it is now.

what you forget to mention that that 80% of history, earth had no life on it either. so unless your okay with all life goign extinct there is a reason to try and change that.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin? So, changing it means heading towards a greenhouse earth, which is a period where life tends to flourish, and letting it run its course prior to anthropogenic contribution means we have another glacial period, where life tends to get weeded down a bit. Which one of these is better?

Also "try to change that." Lol, if you're talking about stopping the global climate from changing ever, and keeping it right here at it's happy temperature that we like, that's incredibly naive. Maybe, with our best efforts, we get a few thousand years at the current status quo, but it's changing one way or the other, and thinking we can stop it from doing so is like shooting a bb gun at a freight train.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yeah, about that...

- Climate is stable for 15 years now

Yeah, about that, any proof to show all those thousands of scientists that disagree?

He's referring to this.

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

It'll be interesting to see if this turns into a sine wave.

 

[ecoho]

You deny that the vast majority of them do these things? OK, bro.

Yes i do. Have any proof to the contrary?

Facebook, infamous environmentalist "scandals" (having a private jet plane is just asking for all of the trouble), failed searching for consistent environmentalists. I literally can't find any. I can't even find any active hippie communes.

I have absolutely no reason to believe they don't do what everyone else does any more than I have reason to believe a yeti is stalking me.

If you're going to be one of those insipid contrarians who expects my "proof" to be an account for literally every environmentalist, please don't. You convince no one if you do that and only further alienate me.

saying "FAcebook" is not proof. do better. Yes, there are some enviromentalist hypocrites. that does not prove that "Vast majority" of them are however. Hippies are not the same as enviromentalist. I am not a hippy, yet i would probably be lumped into enviromentalist type.
Well, if you do not have the proof that most enviromentalists, then maybe you should say things like you know all of them do it?

And since the other guy started listing things about his life i will put myself into the "one of a few million" camp as well.
I do not drive a car. Even though i technically own one, it hasnt left the garage in years. I do use electric tram to get to work. It is run by electricity that was made in nuclear plant. Well, at least till EU forced us to shut it down, and it will again once we Finnish building a replacement. At that point, the electricity running it is completely green. I dont use places. i used places twice in my life. I do use computers. that is because they are more efficient way of doing things and produce no waste. they are also run on electricity, electricity that CAN be made in a green way. Not sure what animal products have to do with enviromentalism. not drinking milk wont magically stop making Co2 or replant oru forests, ect. While i am aware of what happens in slaughterhouses, which is why i often chose my food that come from sources i know when possible. I do not build with lumber. There is very little lumber in my house. Perhpas if you count that wooden spoon i have... I use cement and its variation as well as recycled paper furniture. My heating is centralized and they do use hard fuel for it, which sucks. however that is the only legal way of heating here and is still better than heating locally. I wish they would move to other ways, but i can only do so much in changing the whole countries heating system around. I do advocate alternative energy sources when i can, but im not an eco-terrorist and dont go blowing up their plants. If by chance you meant the cooking place for heaters, then i use electric stove and electric oven, a lot of which is powered by hydro power plant in neighboring city. (i know hydro plants arent enviromentally friendly but its better than hard fuel)

And I usually use blankets or jumpers instead of heaters.

I do use this to a point as well. Usually i try to keep my house at around 18C unless outside is warmer. However if you go into the low temperatures bellow 15C, dont. it starts creating condensation and mold which destroys buildings. its also very unhealthy to inhale. Id rather waste a bit more energy on heating than have to waste far more energy having to rebuild the house in 10 years.

I hear a lot about climate change and how its all our fault, and maybe it is. What can we do? Well put in perspective there's one thing I can think of and thats stop using it as a political weapon.

politics is the only thing that can force everyone to polute less, therefore it being politically involved is important. and we can do a lot. for starters, change the msot poluting sources into less poluting sources, like coal plants into nuclear plants.

For those who don't know, we're currently in a phase called an "icehouse earth." Were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin in as little as 50k years. Also, fun fact, Earth, at the moment, is colder than it has been for about 80% of its history. Historically, for most of its existence, it has been MUCH hotter on average than it is now.

what you forget to mention that that 80% of history, earth had no life on it either. so unless your okay with all life goign extinct there is a reason to try and change that.

Yes, it has accelerated. There won't be any "disastrous" consequences. Some fish will migrate and/or die off, same with some animal species. People buying multimillion dollar beach houses will find themselves underwater in a century or less, and people in KNOWN flood plains will also find themselves underwater more frequently. What about this is disastrous? The earth will not explode, we won't all get obliterated by an asteroid because of global warming. So much sensationalism

is extinction of human life "diastrous" enough for you?

Yeah, about that...

- Climate is stable for 15 years now

Yeah, about that, any proof to show all those thousands of scientists that disagree?

It will continue on with or without us, and we will never be able to affect more than the smallest fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the universe in any meaningful way.
When it becomes a problem, we'll either die or solve it and then start freaking out about the next looming and implacably advancing problem.

That is a very long time. I wouldnt be so brave to as to try and predict that. While obviuosly fiction, its a nice depiction of just how different humans may one day be. and its a very good read if you havent. The Last Question by Asimov [https://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm]

And it already is a problem.

While i do believe it's real, i've yet to see any impact where i live in NY state.. in fact it seems colder, not warmer. it's spring and right was a high of 24 degrees today where i live.. where's this warmer i keep hearing about?

Actually, climat warming likely make palces like New York COLDER first. that is because the GULF current is warming your coast and as a result the weather is warmer. however the melting icecaps are slowing down the current due to clear water entering the stream, which means your coast is heated less and the effects are higher than average world temperature change. however once the current stops the cold peak will happen and it will continue going warmer. this sudden shift up and down will leave plenty of plant life dead as well as animals not used to sudden change.

Hmm... Okay, point taken. <link=http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html>I found this link a to be fairly useful perspective on Agriculture, although I have no idea on where they got their figures. Looks like beef is the main offender - poultry barely registers.

So on the plus side, I do eat poultry more often than beef. On the downside... beef is probably about one meal a week. Damn. Might put some work into reducing that...

that was... interesting. I eat pig mostly so that seems to be on the low offenders list too. A bit offtopic about poultry though. Your profile does not state your gender. If you are a male you may want to rethink that eating habbit though. That is because poultry meat has a lot of female hormones that dont react with male hormones that well. it resuts in low testosterone levels and other chemical unbalances and arent very healthy. For females there is no reaction like that due to both the meat and females having female hormones already. Thats why i moved mostly to pig now when i learn about this. As much as i dont like testosterone effects, i dont like poisoning myself even more.

ok global warming is a thing, its real, and it will effect everyone. That said all we humans have done is accelerated the process by ,I believe the last figure thrown out was 100 thousand years. This has happened many times in the past and will happen again and again over our planets life. Now should we start preparing for what's to come now? most defiantly. Should we try to fix it? maybe if we can prepare at the same time.

Now just want to share why I think most people say its a myth and why people don't seem to care.

1. the idiots that say "we are killing the earth!" we are not, we cant, and to think we could with anything short of just destroying the whole dam thing by blowing it up deathstar style is foolish.
2. people calling for us to dismantle our current energy structure to use alternatives that are still in the infancy. Now to clarify we should and infact are looking at new energy sources to stop our adding to global warming, but they are far from perfect and many wont show any progress for another 20 or so years not the best thing to just switch to.

If we managed to acellerate it by 100.000 years in the short span of less than 100 years, who is to say we cannot do the opposite and decelerate it by god knows how long in those 100.000 we would win? And while its not going to kill "Earth" it could definatelly kill "life" on it. As far as alternatives, sorry, but nuclear power is not in its infancy. its the safest and most powerful energy source we know. its been used for over 60 years now. Or, say, the well used wind power. I can udnerstand the toxicity of solar panels and the untested tidal wave power arguments. but there are much less emission alternatives, especially compared to hard fuel which is the most harmful (coal, wood, ect). Hell, how about we go around getting some H3 off the moon and do that reaction. Or Thorium reactors? yet those are ignored ideas it seems.

Sure, if the world warms up life will be harder, but at least there will still be food.

granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.

nuclear power is pretty risky and you need not look farther then japan to see why. As for wind power its a great source of supplemental power but cant sustain the power needs of most cities, I should know we have one of the largest wind farms right outside of town.
Last but not least to your we can kill all life comment, just no its not actually possible. We can only destroy all life as we know it, to quote DR. Malcome from Jurassic park "life will find a way".

 

[HalfTangible]

granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.

1) See: Icecaps. If the world warms up it's far more likely we'd flood than we'd turn into a desert world.

2) When was the last time you grew food on a glacier?

3) Ancient Egypt. (granted, nile river, but again, there'd be MORE water in a warmer world if it was still cool enough for the question 'can we survive it' to matter - see 1)

 

[JazzJack2]

The "climate change" is a hell of a business. As long as gullible people fund their pseudo-research, these "climate experts" will come up with one doomsday scenario after another.

Yeah remember kids, people who rationally analyze the evidence given to them and who understand basic physics and chemistry are gullible, but people who simply believe news pundits or lobbyists who tell them what they want to hear and then cherry pick evidence (or simply lie) are 'skeptics'.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I said this the better part of ten years ago, but apparently no one was listening to me so I'm going to have to say it again. We are not going to stop climate change; everything we do is going to be too little too late. What we can do is start to plan for it.

In my country "plan for it" means a complete overhaul of flood defence. Unfortunately this won't happen because to many civil servants need to cover their arse (see river dredging). Also we could start planting some vineyards, maybe some olives.

I think a lot more people would be on board with this settled science if projects and proposals were for things that would protect against these doomsday scenarios like defense again chaotic weather, alternative agriculture and overhauling infrastructure rather than running rackets such as carbon offsets, subsidies for failed solar companies and requiring ethanol to be in US vehicles, burning our food supply and further exhausting freshwater aquifers to fuel polluting cars.

Or, you know, if all of these smart scientists who see it coming would tell us these people are doing everything wrong and should be put in jail for endangering the planet. That might be a bit more encouraging than complacency and responsibility science seems comfortable leaving on the table.