By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:

But life was also very different back then and life had time to adapt.

The vast majority of life can still adapt. Most simple lifeforms like bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants aren't going anywhere anytime soon since they are much less sensitive to climate conditions. Most of the animals that already have a conservation status classified as domesticated or least concern will still likely have the same status as they did before 100 years later ... 

Pemalite said:

Meanwhile large swathes of the Americas, Europe, Oceania, Africa could potentially become inhospitable.
Plus sea levels will rise causing the displacement of millions on islands and coastal regions.

It's far from a "good thing".

It's a pretty huge stretch of a scenario though since we'd have to at least find 10x higher fossil fuel reserves to burn before it remotely becomes a problem because right now at our current level we're still under the optimum level of CO2 concentrations for plant life respiration ... 

So far from the NASA data, there's no panic or alarm of large patches of land becoming less arable ...  

Pemalite said: 

Runaway? Maybe. Maybe not.

But there is an exponential increase in damage to the Earths ecosystems for the CO2 we emit.

Will we have a planet like Venus? Shit no. 
But that isn't what I have claimed or ever claimed, but an increase of say 6'C would place extreme summer temperatures at almost 60'C here (140.0 °F) - If you think that is inconsequential to life, then I have a few things to tell you... Because even on 50'C days (122.0 °F) the tar on roads starts to melt, people get hospitalized/die.

I have real world experience of what heat does to an individual, do not just shove it aside casually.

I'm not sure if we can just make a simple quantifiable statement that there is an "exponential increase in damage" because there are other life forms that have benefited so far from increased temperatures such as plants ... 

Also, how can you prove that your example isn't an isolated case ? I realize that some hot and inhospitable areas such as several patches of the sub-saharan desert and some middle eastern territories but for the most part much of Earth seems to be getting greener ... 

While Venus's case is extreme, the IPCC's pessimistic projection so far is 2 degrees celsius so you might want to cut your example by say a factor of 3 and do note that most of this warming will occur in colder regions rather than already hot regions like Australia as a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... (Venus, I think in our entire solar system is the only planet of exhibiting a runaway greenhouse effect since Mercury which is even closer to the sun doesn't have a thick enough atmosphere to create the effect) 

Pemalite said: 

We went from 280PPM to 400PPM with a corresponding increase of 1'C. Bulk of emissions were done within the last 100 years.

And our emissions rate is only continuing to increase, especially as China is undergoing it's industrial revolution.

In 50 years we may have another increase of 1C. - Which means more CO2 will be released from our arctic regions and oceans. (It's like opening a can of coke.)

The issue is... Temperatures will continue to rise, it's not going to stop because people think "We will be alright".

And even when we stop emitting, temperatures will continue to rise as our oceans and arctic regions continue to release more CO2 due to the warmer temperatures.

China is already mostly done with it's industrial revolution according to the US BLS. They're soon going to be richer than both Turkey and Russia per capita since their economies aren't that advanced. The former's bet was to get into the EU single market and the latter's bet on oil but so far it hasn't worked out for both of them. The next likely industrial centers are going to be Africa and India since their still relatively unindustrialized ... 

As far as the risk of arctic regions releasing more emissions, most of the greenhouse gases aren't trapped at the arctic's surface. It's under the deep ocean where it's not likely to reach out of the water and is instead consumed by microbes ... 

As it stands, there are currently not strong enough factors to support a "climate change feedback" AKA "runaway greenhouse effect" like we see on Venus. Sure it'll get undeniably warmer but let's be rational and drop the fear mongering of entertaining the possibility of a rapid uncontrollable increase in temperature for reasons such as not receiving enough solar energy or having an extremely thick atmosphere ... 


Pemalite said: 

Well. Not entirely accurate.
As the arctic regions decline, more opportunities for oil extraction occurs.

However... And this it the big kicker. We can grow oil.

At the moment I have been heavily involved in trying to stop Statoil from drilling for oil in the Great Australia Bight, because... That is one of the most pristine places on Earth... And it is right at my back door. - Got the local councils in my region onboard.


There's not that much fossil fuel to be extracted from the arctic as far as past estimates suggest. It would maybe add a couple of years in our current reserves ? Really the biggest market for warming the arctic would be inhabitation in general ... 

We can sure synthesize biofuels but synthesizing shale or crude oil is simply too hard when geology gave these sources millions of years of optimization to compress the organic matter ... 

As far as you protesting Statoil, it is not in my place to comment on foreign nation's internal matters even though we share the same commonwealth realm. Whether you think the preservation of your local environment is more important than the welfare of your countrymen is yours to deal with ...