Fair enough, assuming your estimates are correct and no unexpected tipping points occur.
But my central questions remain unanswered: what level of CO2ppm are you predicting at 2100 that lead you to this conclusion (IPCC suggests we maybe at around 650ppm)? Are your conclusions born out by the historical record that temperature increases are likely be limited to 3 degrees with that level of CO2ppm, given all the potential feedback loops we know about and those that may be unforeseen? We’re looking at CO2 levels that have been unseen on this planet in over a million years. We did that. And we did it in less than 200 years. If this is a manageable problem, as you argue, then please point me concrete evidence for it in the historical record. In what era were CO2 levels this high in which temperatures and sea levels were such that it could still sustain our existing human civilization? Or are you arguing that the relationship between CO2 and temperature are unproven?
Pretty much the entirety of human civilization has unfolded during a period of temperature and CO2 levels that were theretofore unprecedented during the evolutionary history of modern humans. The Holocene was/is not unusually stable, it was unusually WARM in the history of evolutionarily modern humans.
This is all well and good but I'm surprised you didn't address what seems to me the key metric: the rising global CO2ppm as measured on Mauna Loa (our best long term global benchmark). We have effectively doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over pre-industrial levels (they continue to rise). The historical evidence from the study of ice cores shows a pretty clear correlation between CO2 concentrations and planetary temperature and sea levels. In less than 200 years CO2ppm have risen to levels not seen in over 800,000 years. It's reasonable to conclude that such a dramatic change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in such a short period of time stands a good chance of triggering an equally dramatic impact on global temperature and sea levels, as has happened in the past and appears to be starting to happen in our lifetime. Are you suggesting that this time will be different? Or are you saying that the time horizon for any of this to have a negative impact on human civilization is so long that it won't matter? Or do you accept that dramatic change is coming but that we'll find a way to adapt? If so, I'd like to hear those argument and to see the data that backs it up. I agree with you that the catastrophism you decry is misleading and that the weather related metrics presented by climate activists are highly exaggerated and designed to achieve a political end. I'm with you there. But your argument that today's weather events are manageable fails to persuade me that this will continue to be the case and that some sort of a catastrophe isn't looming, possibly within a time frame that matters (a vague concept to be sure). I'm remain concerned given all that what we know. I'm even more concerned about all that we undoubtedly don't know.
There are three questions here that are worth unpacking. 1. How much temperature change and resulting impact on climatic phenomena should we expect. 2. Over what time frame. 3. What is the capacity of human society to adapt to that amount of change over that timeframe. Our best estimate of 1 is less than 3C by the end of the century, of which about half has already occurred. So for purposes of 2, the answer through 2100 is that human societies should expect to see about as much warming over the rest of this century as they experiences over the last century. And then we come to 3, which is do we think that increasingly wealthy and technologically advanced human societies will be more or less resilient to about as much climate change over the rest of this century as poorer and less advanced human societies were over the last century. And I would suggest that everything we know about growing climate resilience and the very wide range of climatic conditions in which humans are now able to thrive across the planet suggests that humans will be more, not less resilient to the changing climate over the rest of this century than they were over the course of the last century.
Fair enough, assuming your estimates are correct and no unexpected tipping points occur.
But my central questions remain unanswered: what level of CO2ppm are you predicting at 2100 that lead you to this conclusion (IPCC suggests we maybe at around 650ppm)? Are your conclusions born out by the historical record that temperature increases are likely be limited to 3 degrees with that level of CO2ppm, given all the potential feedback loops we know about and those that may be unforeseen? We’re looking at CO2 levels that have been unseen on this planet in over a million years. We did that. And we did it in less than 200 years. If this is a manageable problem, as you argue, then please point me concrete evidence for it in the historical record. In what era were CO2 levels this high in which temperatures and sea levels were such that it could still sustain our existing human civilization? Or are you arguing that the relationship between CO2 and temperature are unproven?
Pretty much the entirety of human civilization has unfolded during a period of temperature and CO2 levels that were theretofore unprecedented during the evolutionary history of modern humans. The Holocene was/is not unusually stable, it was unusually WARM in the history of evolutionarily modern humans.
This is all well and good but I'm surprised you didn't address what seems to me the key metric: the rising global CO2ppm as measured on Mauna Loa (our best long term global benchmark). We have effectively doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over pre-industrial levels (they continue to rise). The historical evidence from the study of ice cores shows a pretty clear correlation between CO2 concentrations and planetary temperature and sea levels. In less than 200 years CO2ppm have risen to levels not seen in over 800,000 years. It's reasonable to conclude that such a dramatic change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in such a short period of time stands a good chance of triggering an equally dramatic impact on global temperature and sea levels, as has happened in the past and appears to be starting to happen in our lifetime. Are you suggesting that this time will be different? Or are you saying that the time horizon for any of this to have a negative impact on human civilization is so long that it won't matter? Or do you accept that dramatic change is coming but that we'll find a way to adapt? If so, I'd like to hear those argument and to see the data that backs it up. I agree with you that the catastrophism you decry is misleading and that the weather related metrics presented by climate activists are highly exaggerated and designed to achieve a political end. I'm with you there. But your argument that today's weather events are manageable fails to persuade me that this will continue to be the case and that some sort of a catastrophe isn't looming, possibly within a time frame that matters (a vague concept to be sure). I'm remain concerned given all that what we know. I'm even more concerned about all that we undoubtedly don't know.
There are three questions here that are worth unpacking. 1. How much temperature change and resulting impact on climatic phenomena should we expect. 2. Over what time frame. 3. What is the capacity of human society to adapt to that amount of change over that timeframe. Our best estimate of 1 is less than 3C by the end of the century, of which about half has already occurred. So for purposes of 2, the answer through 2100 is that human societies should expect to see about as much warming over the rest of this century as they experiences over the last century. And then we come to 3, which is do we think that increasingly wealthy and technologically advanced human societies will be more or less resilient to about as much climate change over the rest of this century as poorer and less advanced human societies were over the last century. And I would suggest that everything we know about growing climate resilience and the very wide range of climatic conditions in which humans are now able to thrive across the planet suggests that humans will be more, not less resilient to the changing climate over the rest of this century than they were over the course of the last century.