Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Edge-]

But seriously do you actually believe ACC is going to cause the GDP, agricultural output, and the population to peak and then decline in the coming years and decades?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/g...a-study-finds/

For agricultural output, yes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/climat...es-2022-04-27/

For GDP, yes.

Human population is projected to continue to grow, which is only going to exacerbate the problem.

How come all the ACC pessimists never make falsifiable predictions?

How come all your optimism is based off of no actual data, but instead, "we'll just innovate our way out of our problem"?

[Shadowferal]

How come all your optimism is based off of no actual data, but instead, "we'll just innovate our way out of our problem"?

He won't answer. He runs from those questions.

Night time temperatures in the 80s this weekend.

[Endus]

Infinite layers! But seriously do you actually believe ACC is going to cause the GDP, agricultural output, and the population to peak and then decline in the coming years and decades? How come all the ACC pessimists never make falsifiable claims and risky predictions? Why do you think that is the case?

They do make such projections. I've already linked them to you in the past from the IPCC reports, and you consistently ignore them because you willfully reject evidence that doesn't confirm your presuppositions. You're posting in bad faith, and you know you're pushing disinformation.

- - - Updated - - -

He won't answer. He runs from those questions.

Night time temperatures in the 80s this weekend.

They aren't even new questions. I answered them and provided receipts the last time he asked them (see the link above). And he ignored me and those studies, and pretended that debunking never happened.

And I know he doesn't have me on ignore because he does respond to me occasionally.

[TwistedSkull]

You know what would be an innovation? Cutting emissions to avoid making it worse xD

[Belize]

You know what would be an innovation? Cutting emissions to avoid making it worse xD

No can do, that would get in the way of profits.

[Unholyground]

The planet will shrug us off if we don't fix it and then it will self correct when the next iceage comes but we will be long dead along with most other mammals.

[Ihavewaffles]

Tornados...in europe

[Shadowferal]

Tornados...in europe

Scary..tornadoes...my personal demons Europe weather: At least 40 injured by tornadoes in Germany – as heat in Spain soars 15C above average

[Unlimited Power]

Tornados...in europe

Not that I'd welcome an increased frequency of tornadoes in Europe, but at least our buildings seem to be built sturdier than east coastal US, so there'll probably be less property damage.

A frightening phenomenon regardless though.

[Iain]

https://www.reuters.com/world/climat...es-2022-04-27/

For GDP, yes.

4% doesn't seem a whole lot.

The pandemic response costed us 2.9% of our GDP.

https://www.statista.com/topics/6139...lobal-economy/

So then question comes down to, if global warming is going to cost us this 4%, it would make sense to spend up to 4% of our GDP in solving it.

One thing that used to worry me was the runaway greenhouse effect. IE even if we stopped emitting then the positive feedback loops we triggered would keep the momentum.

But thankfully this turns out to be outdated:

"In response to an abrupt elimination of carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures either remain approximately constant, or cool slightly as natural carbon sinks gradually draw anthropogenic carbon out of the atmosphere at a rate similar to the mixing of heat into the deep ocean5–8"

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo813.epdf

If global warming was in a net positive feedback loop, then it would make sense to address it as early as possible. The amount we spend today would avoid higher cost later on as it would be a smaller cut from the economic wealth we obtained as a result of investing that GDP into growth.

Or to use a Starcraft analogy, if the enemy is rushing you (positive feedback loop), you don't want to expand and be vulnerable. If the enemy is turtling up (negative feedback loop), you want to claim as many expansions as you can get your hands on and overwhelm your enemy with an enormous economy.

Right now we're going to rapid economic development. Faster than ever. Even if the stock market collapses tomorrow and everything goes bust into an economic depression, the upscaling of our global supply chain and technological innovation will make sure that even the poorest people in this growing economy will be able to send their kids to school, access energy and clean water and even the internet.

Our population will grow from 7.7 billion to 9.4 billion around 2070. That will be the peak. That's much lower than the 13.5 billion projection I was taught in college a decade ago. These projections had to be adjusted in particular because we underestimated the economic growth in developing countries which drastically reduced the amount of children each woman was expected to have. Women no longer having to rely on subsistence farming and being able to focus on a career caused most of this reduction. Which, in turn is the biggest factor in projected emission reduction as well.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

There will be fewer people on this planet than we expected. And these people will be richer and have access to far more potent technology than we expected. Not magical techno-fix technology that climate deniers brandish around. But mass-scaled supply chains and information-infrastructure that drastically reduce their ecological footprint purely by being more efficient than what we have today and especially more efficient than what our parents had.

So there's my trepidation with this rush towards net-zero carbon. We're trying it too fast and we're not getting enough bang for our buck. If this 4% is what we're so concerned about then, the impetus isn't on avoiding that 4% hit on our grandchildren, but rather to ensure that our grandchildren are able to afford it through the economic prosperity we're building for them. Their wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear reactors, agro-technology and transport will far exceed what we have today. Our job is to make sure they have the means to afford it all and let the negative feedback loops do the rest.

Poor economies operate at razor-thin margins, are fragile and can't absorb any setbacks without creating further chaos on their fragile groups. A 4% GDP hit on a wealthy economy might be a higher cost in absolute terms than it would have on a 4% GDP hit of a poor country. But because a wealthy economy is more robust and resilient, has stronger buffers and more resources to shield their vulnerable elements, it's a far lower hit in human well-being.
This idea behind curbing our emissions through degrowth, leaving our grandchildren impoverished is a morally heinous concept.

[Fuiking]

Not that I'd welcome an increased frequency of tornadoes in Europe, but at least our buildings seem to be built sturdier than east coastal US, so there'll probably be less property damage.

A frightening phenomenon regardless though.

That sturdiness isnt a good thing if you start getting F3+ tornados. They actually become way more dangerous then. Also, Tornados arent unheard of in Europe historically.

[Ringthane]

You’ve been shown plenty and ignore it like you do anything that ruins your fantasy head canon.

I’m just here to laugh at the clown.

Must be one heck of a mirror, then. This is the second thread I've seen you make the same sort of remark.

[unfilteredJW]

Must be one heck of a mirror, then. This is the second thread I've seen you make the same sort of remark.

Thanks for the follow.

[jonnysensible]

Iraq looks fookin rough. Climate change is going to be brutal there.

The power crisis caused by the mega drought in the US is looking like it will be brutal too.

[Shadowferal]

Iraq looks fookin rough. Climate change is going to be brutal there.

It's mind-boggling how hot it got last year. If those temps ever get consistent here...

[cubby]

Iraq looks fookin rough. Climate change is going to be brutal there.

The power crisis caused by the mega drought in the US is looking like it will be brutal too.

Those already hot/dry areas are basically fucked (environmental legal term, lol) over the next 50 years. Places like the United States are going to have upheavals like nothing we've ever seen over those same 50 years.

The power crisis, and then an ensuing water crisis, should push us over the edge, one way or another.

[PC2]

Those already hot/dry areas are basically fucked (environmental legal term, lol) over the next 50 years. Places like the United States are going to have upheavals like nothing we've ever seen over those same 50 years.

The power crisis, and then an ensuing water crisis, should push us over the edge, one way or another.

No that's mostly fear mongering. I'd bet you money that our ability to generate power and usable water will go up slightly over 50 years as opposed to going down. But of course doomsayers always make predictions that can't be falsified in a relevant timeframe.

[Edge-]

But of course doomsayers always make predictions that can't be falsified in a relevant timeframe.

And you'll never provide evidence for your magical tech/progress that will always fix all our problems.

Yet here we remain.

[beanman12345]

No that's mostly fear mongering. I'd bet you money that our ability to generate power and usable water will go up slightly over 50 years as opposed to going down. But of course doomsayers always make predictions that can't be falsified in a relevant timeframe.

How much money denier???

[Belize]

No that's mostly fear mongering. I'd bet you money that our ability to generate power and usable water will go up slightly over 50 years as opposed to going down. But of course doomsayers always make predictions that can't be falsified in a relevant timeframe.

Hmm, yes, increasingly harsh droughts year after year really point us towards fresh water being more readily available.

Change your diet if it's that moist with your head inside your ass.