Life after a Global Ecological Collapse

[Veniana]

Okay, since clearly it is useless to try to convince you all that correlation is not causation, (especially since CO2 becomes exponentially less effective as a greenhouse gas as concentration increases) let's imagine a hypothetical universe in which the global average temperature actually goes up six degrees, or whatever silliness you think. What happens? How do six extra degrees translate to people dying?

Totally agree. What's the big deal with all this "save the Earth" thing? I don't see the Earth dying around me, I still got trees in my yard. Hell, I live in Sylvania, Ohio, which is Tree City, USA. Not one tree has died because of so-called "Global Warming," so sue me if I don't recycle.

[Kowani]

Okay, since clearly it is useless to try to convince you all that correlation is not causation, (especially since CO2 becomes exponentially less effective as a greenhouse gas as concentration increases) let's imagine a hypothetical universe in which the global average temperature actually goes up six degrees, or whatever silliness you think. What happens? How do six extra degrees translate to people dying?

Totally agree. What's the big deal with all this "save the Earth" thing? I don't see the Earth dying around me, I still got trees in my yard. Hell, I live in Sylvania, Ohio, which is Tree City, USA. Not one tree has died because of so-called "Global Warming," so sue me if I don't recycle.

…Because climate change takes a while, doesn’t effect everywhere at the same time, and until the actual catastrophe hits, is hard to see.

[Cekoviu]

Okay, since clearly it is useless to try to convince you all that correlation is not causation, (especially since CO2 becomes exponentially less effective as a greenhouse gas as concentration increases) let's imagine a hypothetical universe in which the global average temperature actually goes up six degrees, or whatever silliness you think. What happens? How do six extra degrees translate to people dying?

Totally agree. What's the big deal with all this "save the Earth" thing? I don't see the Earth dying around me, I still got trees in my yard. Hell, I live in Sylvania, Ohio, which is Tree City, USA. Not one tree has died because of so-called "Global Warming," so sue me if I don't recycle.

Oh my god, I want to fucking scream right now.

[Farnhamia]

Totally agree. What's the big deal with all this "save the Earth" thing? I don't see the Earth dying around me, I still got trees in my yard. Hell, I live in Sylvania, Ohio, which is Tree City, USA. Not one tree has died because of so-called "Global Warming," so sue me if I don't recycle.

Oh my god, I want to fucking scream right now.

I bet it snows in December or January, too, so there.

[Bear Stearns]

if shit hits the fan I will retreat to my family's compound in Maine and hide out, subsisting on chewy bars, rye whiskey, and LL Bean leather boots.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Okay, since clearly it is useless to try to convince you all that correlation is not causation, (especially since CO2 becomes exponentially less effective as a greenhouse gas as concentration increases) let's imagine a hypothetical universe in which the global average temperature actually goes up six degrees, or whatever silliness you think. What happens? How do six extra degrees translate to people dying?

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
"Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.


Figure 1: Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over both the last 1000 years and the preceding 400,000 years as measured in ice cores

As a greenhouse gas, this increase in atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of downward longwave radiation from the atmosphere, including towards the Earth's surface.

Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.


Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.



Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes?

Radiative Transfer Models
Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2, how do we determine the associated temperature change?

Climate sensitivity
As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.

Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.



Figure 4: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4).

We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,

dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.

Conservation of Energy
Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:

"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).



Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.

In Figure 4, Huber and Knutti break down the anthropogenic and natural forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of warming caused by each since the 1850s (Figure 4b), 1950s (4c), and projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as business-as-usual (4d).



Figure 4: Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5–95% uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5–95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Huber and Knutti. And like Huber and Knutti, they find that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed, because other factors have had a net cooling effect over the past century (Figure 5).


Figure 5: Greenhouse gas contribution to global warming according to various peer-reviewed attribution studies."
Source: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... vanced.htm

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

What happens? How do six extra degrees translate to people dying?

The ice caps melt, millions of square miles of land becomes submerged underwater, entire coastal cities, states and nations across the planet are gone causing hundreds of millions (if not billions) to become climate refugees that’ll move inland to places not underwater. Hot areas become hotter causing droughts and crop failures leading to famines where tens of millions will die of starvation and dehydration on a regular basis, this means places like North and South Africa, Australia and probably the American Southwest becoming uninhabitable wasteland, desertification will also worsen and spread. Severe storms become stronger and more severe and will slam into populated areas causing unfathomable tolls in infrastructure damage and death, we will see the first Category 6 hurricanes and F6 strength tornadoes in history. War over land and resources will also inevitably occur and become much more common as time goes on with all of this happening, we will see the deadliest conflicts in human history since the Second World War which could possibly surpass it in terms of death and destruction. Due to all of this, economies and entire nations will collapse as the sea levels rise, Wars kick off, famines and droughts worsen and hundreds of millions of climate refugees flee from the coasts and worse off areas.

That’s what an extra six degrees will do to us.

[Saiwania]

That’s what an extra six degrees will do to us.

The real problem is that it isn't just a 6 degree increase. In reality it is more like an 11 degree increase (if rounded up), if Fahrenheit is used. People think it isn't as big of a deal because of that Celcius system that too much of the world likes to use. When Celcius is only really useful in scientific contexts, not for weather. It doesn't give out a number we can relate to in terms of how cold or hot it feels like Fahrenheit can.

[Page]

That’s what an extra six degrees will do to us.

The real problem is that it isn't just a 6 degree increase. In reality it is more like an 11 degree increase (if rounded up), if Fahrenheit is used. People think it isn't as big of a deal because of that Celcius system that too much of the world likes to use. When Celcius is only really useful in scientific contexts, not for weather. It doesn't give out a number we can relate to in terms of how cold or hot it feels like Fahrenheit can.

I'm paraphrasing something someone else said on NSG a few months ago, but Celsius is actually rather practical for weather:

0: Cold
10: Mildly cold
20: Room temperature
30: Hot
40: Brutally hot

As an American abroad, I stopped converting to Fahrenheit after a year, it becomes intuitive.

[New haven america]

Mad Max, Desert Punk, Trigun, Borderlands, etc..

[New haven america]

The real problem is that it isn't just a 6 degree increase. In reality it is more like an 11 degree increase (if rounded up), if Fahrenheit is used. People think it isn't as big of a deal because of that Celcius system that too much of the world likes to use. When Celcius is only really useful in scientific contexts, not for weather. It doesn't give out a number we can relate to in terms of how cold or hot it feels like Fahrenheit can.

I'm paraphrasing something someone else said on NSG a few months ago, but Celsius is actually rather practical for weather:

0: Cold
10: Mildly cold
20: Room temperature
30: Hot
40: Brutally hot

As an American abroad, I stopped converting to Fahrenheit after a year, it becomes intuitive.

Nein, 40 is a low number on the scale of 0-100.

How can it be brutally hot if it's not even at the halfway mark?

[Lanoraie II]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

>there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change

Conservationist here. Where would you like me to begin on this sentence?

[Cekoviu]

The real problem is that it isn't just a 6 degree increase. In reality it is more like an 11 degree increase (if rounded up), if Fahrenheit is used. People think it isn't as big of a deal because of that Celcius system that too much of the world likes to use. When Celcius is only really useful in scientific contexts, not for weather. It doesn't give out a number we can relate to in terms of how cold or hot it feels like Fahrenheit can.

I'm paraphrasing something someone else said on NSG a few months ago, but Celsius is actually rather practical for weather:

0: Cold
10: Mildly cold
20: Room temperature
30: Hot
40: Brutally hot

As an American abroad, I stopped converting to Fahrenheit after a year, it becomes intuitive.

20 is a rather chilly room, imo. Rooms ought to be 22-25.

[Cekoviu]

I'm paraphrasing something someone else said on NSG a few months ago, but Celsius is actually rather practical for weather:

0: Cold
10: Mildly cold
20: Room temperature
30: Hot
40: Brutally hot

As an American abroad, I stopped converting to Fahrenheit after a year, it becomes intuitive.

Nein, 40 is a low number on the scale of 0-100.

How can it be brutally hot if it's not even at the halfway mark?

I see you are a thinking man.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I'm paraphrasing something someone else said on NSG a few months ago, but Celsius is actually rather practical for weather:

0: Cold
10: Mildly cold
20: Room temperature
30: Hot
40: Brutally hot

As an American abroad, I stopped converting to Fahrenheit after a year, it becomes intuitive.

Nein, 40 is a low number on the scale of 0-100.

How can it be brutally hot if it's not even at the halfway mark?

Because 100 degrees Celsius is the boiling point of water, and the closer you are to it, the more hotter it gets, and anything above 50-60°C would be extremely unbearable unless you wore minimal clothing and were raised your entire life within said environment.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

Climate change and global warming happen without us. We just accelerate it.

[Tornado Queendom]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

I agree, because scientists are likely forced to do this in fear of being fired.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

I agree, because scientists are likely forced to do this in fear of being fired.

Then why on earth has no respectable figure blown the whistle on this supposed "conspiracy"? I mean, maintaining the silence of 90% of the world's scientific community over a supposed "great hoax" would be virtually impossible unless they were somehow controlled by advanced mind-control technology from the future. And the scientific method does not make room for bias, because if a result is either not reproducible, consistent with well established theory, or verified by rigorous peer-review, then it's not science, simple as that.

[Cekoviu]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

I agree, because scientists are likely forced to do this in fear of being fired.

I'm curious - have you ever studied science or worked in science? Because as someone who does both of those things, you seem to be spewing bullshit right now.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I agree, because scientists are likely forced to do this in fear of being fired.

I'm curious - have you ever studied science or worked in science? Because as someone who does both of those things, you seem to be spewing bullshit right now.

I bet he doesn't even have an idea of what ice core samples or paleoclimatology is, much less have an career in science.

[Neanderthaland]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

I agree, because scientists are likely forced to do this in fear of being fired.

Given the cushy job they'd immediately find at ExxonMobil, this seems unlikely. Just like all the doctors who worked for cigarette companies.

If anything, it's a credit to the institution that this doesn't happen more.

[True Refuge]

I'm curious - have you ever studied science or worked in science? Because as someone who does both of those things, you seem to be spewing bullshit right now.

I bet he doesn't even have an idea of what ice core samples or paleoclimatology is, much less have an career in science.

You should probably quote your two big graph-filled summaries of the research every time a climate denier/skeptic shows up.

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

I agree, because scientists are likely forced to do this in fear of being fired.

This is a painful idea to deal with, and nearly impossible to argue against. There's no way to know the situation of every climate scientist out there, so this is just a veiled method of discrediting all evidence that doesn't support your position without making the effort to properly criticize or even read the research.

[Tokora]

Because they are communists, the fact that you deny this is really telling.


If you're going to keep peddling this far-left, anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist and frankly anti-American horseshit, then I'm going to call you out for being a bloody Bolshevik.

I could call you an anarcho-capitalist and it would make just about the same amount of sense that calling the Democrats communists. Any political scientist, and indeed any actual communist would laugh in your face if you told them the Dems were communist.

Just so we're on the same page, can you please define your view of:

Communist/Communism
Socialist/Socialism
Bolshevik/Bolshevism
Marxism
Marxism-Leninism

Your view of the political spectrum is so far from normal that I feel this is necessary.

As an actual Communist I can vouch for that. But seriously, I was asking how we'd survive after crossing the point of no return, not whether or nor climate change is a hoax. You tin hats are dragging the thread way off topic so can't you just torture the people on a thread actually debating climate change or better yet just start your own thread for deniers?

Climate Change will result in coastal areas going underwater, causing mass refugees to flood the inland. The worst effect of this will be Florida, the entire peninsula of 20 Million will turn into a murky swampland uninhabitable by normal means. However, none of this will lead to the mass extinction that you talked about in the OP, so it’s a little far fetched

How badly would Seattle (love the space needle) be flooded, as in would any of the city still be habitable or would you be able to see any of the buildings or landmarks above water?

Also I thought the combination of habitat destruction, pollution, and rising sea levels would create the perfect storm of adapt or die with most animals dying. On that note what are the odds of cattle (livestock), horses (transportation), and deer (hunting) surviving?

No matter the cause, it’s happening, and it’ll result in millions of people being displaced

As another poster mentioned though, the OP is highly speculative and by the point we get to catastrophe temperatures tp the point of the OP, nuclear power will lift dependence on fossil fuels and atmospheric filtering tech would likely be invented

You're assuming people will start using nuclear power more and won't just keep using oil and natural gas to the point it runs out

People aren't that smart. I predict its gonna be as bad as possible because no one will prepare

I agree with the scepticism that we'd stop using fossil fuels until the bitter end so would we be able to develop an alternative fuel source after that point such as nuclear energy, or if it's past the point for any alternative what century would technology resemble?

The Water Bears will rise. Water bear empire!

Can't possible do any worse than we did.

[The Black Forrest]

He who controls the spice; controls the universe!

[Neanderthaland]

He who controls the spice; controls the universe!

That does explain how the Old Spice guy seems to warp reality around him into whatever he chooses.