It's not a continuum either. There are tipping points: think of the ice sheets all melting, the sea levels rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped. Moreover, continually adding energy to the system makes it more chaotic, engendering abrupt and unpredictable shifts. We can't necessarily "choose" the consequences in some kind of orderly manner, as if from a menu.
We also have options that are unpopular/seem bad right now but may not in the future, like solar geoengineering via releasing specific compounds into the atmospheric.
Something like that could also likely be achieved, or at least put into motion, by a single desperate nation.
When one looks at the history of human interventions in ecosystems, one cannot be optimistic. Whether it’s about defending against invasive species or restoring ecosystems to their “original state,” our limited understanding of complex ecosystems inevitably leads to interventions with negative side effects.
> Maybe time has already run out, and it's too late to prevent the terrible consequences.
My point is that there are options for the future. Even if they are not palatable ones. It's not as cut and dry as global warming has already started, it is too late to fix it or mitigate it, and we are all fucked no mater what.
> My point is that there are options for the future. Even if they are not palatable ones.
You really need to elaborate about the "not palatable" aspect. What I've heard are only extremely dubious and unproven ideas with possible consequences as bad or worse than the current consequences. You make it sound like the problem is just public acceptance, but that's not the real problem with the so-called "options". There are no magic beans here.
It's very much proven that our atmosphere can be impacted differently by different gasses. We don't have a fix it now button. But we are also not on a downward spiral with zero options.
The problem is largely with public acceptance. We've been negatively impacting our atmosphere for a very long time. Any and every half effort measure that has been taken to mitigate or reverse the damage has failed. The damage continues.
It seems much more likely, and makes a lot more sense, to me for us to focus on large scale efforts that might have an immediate and actual impact. Instead of hoping that tomorrow maybe people will start to listen and everyone will give up eating meat, corporations will go carbon zero, and green energy will become the default.
If climate change continues, which it seems like it certainly will, someone/some nation state will attempt solar geoengineering. I'd rather us be 25+ years into researching how to safely and effectively do it than have a small desperate people do it as a last hope.
Is it dangerous? Absolutely. Does it seem scary and even stupid right now? Sure. 100%. But it sounds like a better option than watching life slowly die out while saying I told you so...
Global warming is a result of the set point of the system going up more than cumulative addition of energy.
The sun absolutely blasts the planet with energy and the planet radiates away most of it. Global warming is shifting the amount of energy in the system when those things are in balance.
> rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped
Then it’s not a coast, it’s underwater. The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do.
Also worth noting the sea level is actually falling relative to land level in many areas, especially towards the poles. What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles.
> The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do.
Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history.
> People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do.
Oh yeah, no problem. Please tell the billion or so people who live in coastal areas that it's totally fine.
> What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles.
Because the land and infrastructure there is surely fantastic. I suppose those people don't need, you know, food or water, for example? But ignoring the geological and ecological problems for the moment, consider the political problems. We're already driving ourselves crazy over a relatively small amount of immigration, and you're saying it's fine that a billion or two people are going to move—or at least try to move—into different countries? I'm guessing they won't be welcomed with open arms.
> Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history.
Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting.
The political problems will sort themselves out (literally people problems), and the infrastructure will be built to accommodate the changing demographics. People move, people build. This is basic stuff.
> Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting.
People who lives on the coasts don't have to move every second of every day, month, year, etc., due to the coasts moving. In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving.
> literally people problems
Climate change is a people problem. As George Carlin joked, "There's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked!"
> This is basic stuff.
No, your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory.
> In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving.
You're misinformed. It's very common in places with hurricanes, for instance.
> your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that humans can't move and build, or at least that doing so is "hard". When in fact putting in the hard work to move and build has been the cornerstone of human civilization for as long as human civilization has existed. It's a very conservative view that strangely seems to be held only by liberals: "the way things were is the best way they can possibly be, all this change is no good, we have to go back to the good old days!". With of course nothing real to justify it.
You inverted Chronological Snobbery, but it's still just as much as fallacy.
> You're misinformed. It's very common in places with hurricanes, for instance.
No, I'm not misinformed. A good friend of mine was misplaced by Hurricane Katrina—though the problem was that he lost his job as a result of the hurricane rather than losing his home. But it's not actually very common. Places with hurricanes include, for example, a very large part of the United States, almost the entire area along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Now tell me how many tens of millions of people have moved out of the area entirely due to hurricanes. The population of the areas threatened by hurricanes is still massive. (It should be noted that after a temporary drop, the population of New Orleans has bounced back to previous levels now after Katrina.)
> Your entire argument is based on the idea that humans can't move and build, or at least that doing so is "hard".
You're completely ignoring the scale of the problem. When you talk about "humans", without a number, it's a misleading way of putting it. Again, several billion people on Earth are living in the danger zone. This is a much larger problem than any immigration or refugee crisis that currently exists or has ever existed.
> When in fact putting in the hard work to move and build has been the cornerstone of human civilization for as long as human civilization has existed.
Actually, no, if we were willing to put in the hard work, then we could have avoided global warming catastophe altogether. Instead, we largely ignored the problem and did nothing to stop it.
You seem to believe this will be some all at once mass migration of billions of people. That is not the case. In fact, the migration has already started, and will continue to progress at the rate possible. The system is working.
And “avoided the climate catastrophe” is funny. Y’all would just find some different model to fast forward far beyond its applicable domain and range, then doomsay about that. Consider: what would these chronically anxious folks be doing right now if they didn’t have this to worry about? Nature abhors a vacuum, something else would fill the place.
Considering all the far more severe, far more real, things every ancestor you’ve ever had would have been worrying about, we’re doing pretty well. Shame so many people’s despressive anxiety can’t accept that.
> In fact, the migration has already started, and will continue to progress at the rate possible. The system is working.
Citation needed.
I just explained how the population of New Orleans has actually rebounded after Hurricane Katrina, and you're claiming, absurdly, that the migration away from coastal areas all over the world has already started.
> chronically anxious folks
> despressive anxiety
This is baseless nonsense, armchair psychology at its worst.
> This is baseless nonsense, armchair psychology at its worst.
I presume you consider your method of "take a million climate models, extrapolate them out decades beyond what we have any knowledge of, discard all the ones that aren't alarming, be alarmed at the remainder" is based armchair climatology?
> You're looking at far too small a window. The population in New Orleans peaked decades ago.
The point about New Orleans was to refute your argument about Hurricanes. The population is now higher than it was before Katrina, and it's still growing.
If you arbitrarily choose the peak population year, then it's currently 5% lower than the peak year, but again, the population is now growing not shrinking, and it's as high now as it was back in 1975, an even wider window than you selected.
In any case, you've conveniently avoided my request for a citation that the world population is moving away from the coasts.
> I presume you consider your method
More baseless nonsense. I'm done here. I've already wasted too much time on your junk comments.
> In any case, you've conveniently avoided my request for a citation that the world population is moving away from the coasts.
I never claimed that, I claimed that the population would move on an as-needed basis, which you yourself demonstrated via your friend. Why would people move if there is no danger? That said, we do indeed see falling property values in growing flood zones, pointing towards decreased desirability of some coastal land. My claim is that such land will slowly grow over time, at a manageable rate. As we have observed to date. Again, my entire claim: "people move, people build, life moves on".
> If you arbitrarily choose the peak population year
Lol. How is picking the maximum arbitrary when considering trends? Another piece of based armchair statistics from you.
> I'm done here. I've already wasted too much time on your junk comments.
Unfortunately common when one tries to disrupt the HN hivemind. "I don't have any facts to back this up but Smart People^{tm} say it's true so if you don't agree you're dumb".
Technically? If you count Antarctica then yes it was more like 30 million years ago. The massive northern hemisphere ice sheets are much more recent.
The Late Cenozoic Ice Age,[5][6] or Antarctic Glaciation,[7][8] began 34 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing.[5] It is Earth's current ice age or icehouse period. Its beginning is marked by the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets.
In the last three million years, glaciations have spread to the northern hemisphere. It commenced with Greenland becoming increasingly covered by an ice sheet in late Pliocene (2.9-2.58 Ma ago)[11] During the Pleistocene Epoch (starting 2.58 Ma ago), the Quaternary glaciation developed with decreasing mean temperatures and increasing amplitudes between glacials and interglacials. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene, large areas of northern North America and northern Eurasia have been covered by ice sheets.
