Climate Change Debate (Invitation Only)

[Laika]

Thread invitations for @Iti oj , @MD, and @Quetzal based on previous conversations. After deliberation among the original four, Additional invitations for this thread go out to @Rowan, @Shadow Wolf, @Kirran, @Revoltingest and @YmirGF to include a greater range of views and the expectation that they would be willing to participate. (I will send a PM after writing this thread). Given the numbers involved this could get messy but we'll see how it goes.

This thread started as a spin off from the following discussion below:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/still-think-its-an-exaggeration.192967/

The article in the thread showed that PaleoClimate models anticipated changes in global tempratures exceeding seven degrees celcius by the year 2100.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...imate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html

Climate change at levels above two degrees celcius is consulidered "catastrophic" by the international community. At four degrees, it may reduce the majority of the world to uninhabitable desert, threatening food and water supplies to billions of people- requiring a massive reallignment of our social, economic and political systems in response to this existential threat assuming it is even possible for human societies adapt to that extent.

Both the maps below are from google images and are illustrative of the scale of the problems involved.

Seven Degrees by the end of this century is not an alarming or even unthinkable. It is unforgivable. This does not have to be measured in terms of damage to hypothetical future generations, but in terms of present generations alive and being born now who will be affected. Many of us alive today could live to see such a future unfold.

It is with this in mind, that this debate on Climate Change can try to build up a picture of the causes, effects and solutions. It is important to do so not simply as an intellectual exercise on this forum, but as a basis for informing action offline which could make a difference in responding to this threat and in which all members of this forum can build on and learn from by pooling our common scientific knowledge, various expertise as well as divergent viewpoints on its implications and solutions. If nothing else, it may break the interia and depression as we seek common answers to a common problem.

To start the ball rolling, I would like to pose a question and we can then start exchanging ideas after that and hopefully arrive somewhere better informed than when we started.

i) What do you consider the most serious implications of climate change?

ii) how likely do you think it is in current climate science?

iii) what do you think are the best solutions to respond to climate change?

The End of the world is nigh, so Lets do what we do best and debate the **** out of this thing.

Edit: if you want to part of the discussion, please send me a private message or leave a profile post requesting to be part of the thread. I can then leave a Tag in this thread which means you can post here without any moderation problems. (This is improvised just to try and keep some control over it).

The only conditions are that you don't deliberately de-rail the thread or use Denial tactics to attack the science of Climate Change. (E.g. Climate Change is not proven/real/man-made). If you want to challange the science- do so based on science preferably with links and sources, not politics. We want this to be as productive and informative as possible.

 

[Laika]

P.s. As suggested, an additional optional invitation for @Quintessence . (PM sent in a sec). That brings it up to 10 people.

 

[Iti oj]

Responding to question 1 2 and 3

1.biodiversity loss. food shortages, drought and resource warfare as well as desertification and uninhabitable zones. Also ocean acidification.
Ok so everything

2.
The models are already being shown to be too conservative.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

Basically saying it's happening faster and stronger then expected.

3.well I'm not convinced that this is enough but I'm trying to educate people on conservative options http://www.republicen.org
More on my opinion
We need to pay the true price of energy not pass the bill on to others. The market needs strong signals. We need new infrastructure and we need a smart grid and smart appliances . We need several technologies working at once. Also we need to switch to a plant based diet.

 

[MD]

Thanks for this Laika.

i) What do you consider the most serious implications of climate change?

Methane release from permafrost melting, resulting in an exponential warming. This will lead to apocalyptic conditions as much of the world dries up, oceans die and billions will migrate

ii) how likely do you think it is in current climate science?

I think it's quite likely, especially given the new science which shows methane release is increasing and that the earth is much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought before.

iii) what do you think are the best solutions to respond to climate change?

Geoengineering, nuclear power and space exploration. I don't think the current economic model allows for the kind of sustainable scale back we need, and the global culture is also very consumerist.

 

[Laika]

i) most serious implication of Climate Change?

If I had to name on its the potential catastrophic collapse in population due to water and food shortages (anticipated by the end of this century).

What scares me most is how this plays out politically. If its a choice between controlled or uncontrolled reductions in global population- a government will act in its own self-interest to preserve itself and go for a "controlled" reduction in population. To me, this raises a serious probability of a 21st century totalitarian system which is an even greater threat than its 20th century predecessors.

The alternative of "uncontrolled" population reduction is arguably worse in terms of a global famine, wars and civil wars over diminishing resources.

ii) how likely?

The scenario is a political one, but its more likely if we reach three or four degrees of climate change with the corresponding shifts in global weather patterns affecting fresh water and food supplies.

iii) best solutions?

Prayer?

I think we may have gone beyond the point of no return now and that we are literally going to have to invent our way out of this. The inertia and rigidity of the current socio-economic and political system is basically collective suicide for short term gain. So I'm going for untested, unproven theories of climate engineering because we have to control the climate. its not the best solution but its the sort of "big idea" that may get us somewhere for a problem as big as this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dang...there's a lot here.
Thank you all for the invite.
I'm unqualified to debate anything.
But I am willing to read, converse, & to bicker.

 

[Iti oj]

Thanks for this Laika.



Methane release from permafrost melting, resulting in an exponential warming. This will lead to apocalyptic conditions as much of the world dries up, oceans die and billions will migrate



I think it's quite likely, especially given the new science which shows methane release is increasing and that the earth is much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought before.



Geoengineering, nuclear power and space exploration. I don't think the current economic model allows for the kind of sustainable scale back we need, and the global culture is also very consumerist.

You bring up methane so I want to ask you about the problem of methane and the beef industry .

Are you or are you willing to give up beef or meat in general ? do you think it's helpful or necessary ?

 

[MD]

Dang...there's a lot here.
Thank you all for the invite.
I'm unqualified to debate anything.
But I am willing to read, converse, & to bicker.

Please do

 

[MD]

You bring up methane so I want to ask you about the problem of methane and the beef industry .

Are you or are you willing to give up beef or meat in general ? do you think it's helpful or necessary ?

I very rarely eat beef (once every few months) and almost never eat pork. I eat chicken, fish and eggs. I try to buy free range/organic/grass fed stuff as much as possible.

I think some meats are okay to eat, for example if you have an overpopulation of animals like gators or possums. When I visited Louisiana I ate a lot of gator meat due to the over population there. Kangaroos also do not release methane and are a viable meat source.

 

[Iti oj]

Dang...there's a lot here.
Thank you all for the invite.
I'm unqualified to debate anything.
But I am willing to read, converse, & to bicker.

Well we thought you would add good diversity of opinion here. any insight or participation would be appreciated . would you try your hand at the three opening questions ?

 

[Iti oj]

I very rarely eat beef (once every few months) and almost never eat pork. I eat chicken, fish and eggs. I try to buy free range/organic/grass fed stuff as much as possible.

I think some meats are okay to eat, for example if you have an overpopulation of animals like gators or possums. When I visited Louisiana I ate a lot of gator meat due to the over population there. Kangaroos also do not release methane and are a viable meat source.

Well animal agriculture in general leads to deforestation . I do look at local hunted meat as different especially in areas where natural predator were removed.

I'm a vegetarian myself atm

 

[Revoltingest]

Well we thought you would add good diversity of opinion here. any insight or participation would be appreciated . would you try your hand at the three opening questions ?

I'm being alerted a bunch.
Tonite!

 

[Iti oj]

Just posting links.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/this-is-how-animal-agriculture-causes-deforestation/

And

http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+methane+climate+change&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,38&as_vis=1

 

[YmirGF]

i) What do you consider the most serious implications of climate change?

The inability to reach any meaningful consensus on how to combat the challenge.

ii) how likely do you think it is in current climate science?

Unlikely. I've somewhat left the science side behind and am now focused on what next. That is where we have serious problems that are simply not being addressed.

iii) what do you think are the best solutions to respond to climate change?

I foresee a "Manhattan Project" or the "10 year race to the moon" blueprint to find renewable "clean" energy sources and see this as an (inter)national security issue.

The End of the world is nigh, so Lets do what we do best and debate the **** out of this thing.

I don't believe for a second that the end is nigh. That does not mean and should not be construed as saying that I am unconcerned about the position we are in.

 

[Iti oj]

The inability to reach any meaningful consensus on how to combat the challenge.

Unlikely. I've somewhat left the science side behind and am now focused on what next. That is where we have serious problems that are simply not being addressed.

I foresee a "Manhattan Project" or the "10 year race to the moon" blueprint to find renewable "clean" energy sources and see this as an (inter)national security issue.


I don't believe for a second that the end is nigh. That does not mean and should not be construed as saying that I am unconcerned about the position we are in.

Actually I think we need more than a Manhattan style solution as the problem is more dynamic and we need a systematic approach .

 

[YmirGF]

Actually I think we need more than a Manhattan style solution as the problem is more dynamic and we need a systematic approach .

That's all very well, Iti oj, but what is your suggestion? The UN is simply in no position to mandate any kind of massive program that its members would be required to take part in. Due to that consideration, the onus falls on a few countries to take up the gauntlet and blaze the trail for others to follow.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So I'm going for untested, unproven theories of climate engineering because we have to control the climate. its not the best solution but its the sort of "big idea" that may get us somewhere for a problem as big as this.

You might have heard something about this - I don't remember many details because it has been awhile, but apparently there is a substance that when released into the atmosphere will work to halt and reverse some of the cooling. But the concern is two fold; these chemicals will have to be dumped globally, and many nations will not react kindly; and we are still going to have to radically adjust the way we live because it's only a short term solution.

What scares me most is how this plays out politically. If its a choice between controlled or uncontrolled reductions in global population- a government will act in its own self-interest to preserve itself and go for a "controlled" reduction in population. To me, this raises a serious probability of a 21st century totalitarian system which is an even greater threat than its 20th century predecessors.

Population trends are shifting to the point I think with population we are going to have to wait and see. The Japanese population is dwindling, and the Chinese population is likely to plummet over the course of the next few decades given their heavily lopsided male|female ratio. India could be devastated by plague or war given their proximity to Pakistan. Even in Europe the population is declining. We also do have to consider global terror. If they can get a hold of a number of biochemical agents, or even a nuclear weapon, we could loose millions of people with just a single attack.
However, if push comes to shove, I have no doubts many states would go for a "controlled" reduction. But I tend to lean towards the side that enough of us will be dead from a number of other things before such an option would need to be considered. America, for example, is being balanced on the edge of a knife and I do think we may only be a few war-mongering, poor kicking, rights killing, rich catering, police militarizing presidents away from another civil war. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic about our future, but I don't think we'll get nearly as high in population as we are predicted to.

Are you or are you willing to give up beef or meat in general ? do you think it's helpful or necessary ?

If we can get our agriculture and consumption under control, we wouldn't have to give up meat altogether, but we do have to give up factory farming, McDonald's, we are going to have to eat much less meat (it would be good for our collective health anyways), and most of our foods of convenience. It's nice having any type of fruit year round, but we do have to acknowledge that such luxuries are literally going to be our downfall. A few cows and hunted fish and game to provide meat for a community I doubt would make an alarming contribution as long as we have everything else undercontrol.

I don't believe for a second that the end is nigh. That does not mean and should not be construed as saying that I am unconcerned about the position we are in.

I am also certain we, and other forms of life, will carry on. However, things will probably get much harder, especially since we are reluctant to ease into the necessary changes now meaning they will likely be forced on us later. Mad Max may become more reality and less fantasy.

 

[Iti oj]

That's all very well, Iti oj, but what is your suggestion? The UN is simply in no position to mandate any kind of massive program that its members would be required to take part in. Due to that consideration, the onus falls on a few countries to take up the gauntlet and blaze the trail for others to follow.

I actually think what your saying important. I have bolded for emphasis .

There are many developing nations that deserve to develop and who's people deserve development and getting out of energy poverty. they even have the right to repeat our mistakes and developed how we did. there is President for nations and continents to skip whole technological stages and infrastructure . like skipping land lines and going to mobile in Africa and China. Africa also skipped banking infrastructure and went to mobile banking.

Why can't they skip dirty power and inefficiency if developed nations lead the way. Also since its the next technical and industrial revolution nations that lead in this will be economically better off though all will benefit.

What I mean though in my post is that it's not just renewable energy but things like; efficiency, design, infrastructure and a smart grid as well as a change to what we eat how we get and where it comes from .
There is no one solution but a systematic change.

 

[Iti oj]

You might have heard something about this - I don't remember many details because it has been awhile, but apparently there is a substance that when released into the atmosphere will work to halt and reverse some of the cooling. But the concern is two fold; these chemicals will have to be dumped globally, and many nations will not react kindly; and we are still going to have to radically adjust the way we live because it's only a short term solution.

Population trends are shifting to the point I think with population we are going to have to wait and see. The Japanese population is dwindling, and the Chinese population is likely to plummet over the course of the next few decades given their heavily lopsided male|female ratio. India could be devastated by plague or war given their proximity to Pakistan. Even in Europe the population is declining. We also do have to consider global terror. If they can get a hold of a number of biochemical agents, or even a nuclear weapon, we could loose millions of people with just a single attack.
However, if push comes to shove, I have no doubts many states would go for a "controlled" reduction. But I tend to lean towards the side that enough of us will be dead from a number of other things before such an option would need to be considered. America, for example, is being balanced on the edge of a knife and I do think we may only be a few war-mongering, poor kicking, rights killing, rich catering, police militarizing presidents away from another civil war. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic about our future, but I don't think we'll get nearly as high in population as we are predicted to.

If we can get our agriculture and consumption under control, we wouldn't have to give up meat altogether, but we do have to give up factory farming, McDonald's, we are going to have to eat much less meat (it would be good for our collective health anyways), and most of our foods of convenience. It's nice having any type of fruit year round, but we do have to acknowledge that such luxuries are literally going to be our downfall. A few cows and hunted fish and game to provide meat for a community I doubt would make an alarming contribution as long as we have everything else undercontrol.

I am also certain we, and other forms of life, will carry on. However, things will probably get much harder, especially since we are reluctant to ease into the necessary changes now meaning they will likely be forced on us later. Mad Max may become more reality and less fantasy.

Your right, it's not just what we eat but, where it's from, how we get it and how we eat it. I think more gardening is needed a return to the victory garden so to speak

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your right, it's not just what we eat but, where it's from, how we get it and how we eat it. I think more gardening is needed a return to the victory garden so to speak

Though more gardening would help, I think the only sensible option that will have any meaningful impact is a complete and total overhaul of our agricultural practices and methods of food production and distribution. Really, I've wondered if completely redoing these things to develop a model that is sustainable and ethical would be enough on its own to offset greenhouse gases. It's not just be the factory farmed beef that is cut out, but also the massive amounts of transportation, shipping packages, food processing, and the myriad of other resource drains and pollution that come from those few things. Even just cutting out fast food entirely I have wondered if it would close enough factory farms to at least slow things down and get us moving in the right direction.
However, I don't think many people would support drastic, radical, and immediate actions, but the longer we put off acting the more drastic, radical, and immediate our solutions are going to have to be.