[Tony Dubois (OP)]

I've come across several folks who claim that we are way past saving humanity from the horrifying effects of global warming. They say that we'd crossed that line about 30-40 years ago. We can only slow the process if all the nations come together, but the seas will rise, the ice caps will melt, and the global temperature is definitely going to rise as well. Humans are going to go extinct. The planet, of course, will prevail.

Do you think this is true?

[alancalverd]

40 years ago the scientific consensus was that we were heading for another ice age. Unfortunately nature does not respond to human consensus.

The world has been a lot hotter and a lot colder than in recent history, and most geological records show periods of rapid warming followed by slow cooling. There is nothing we can or ever could do to affect it.

There is no reason why humans should be extinguished as a species by warming, but the effect on societies will be profound. Nearly all humans live within the first 1000 feet above sea level, either near coasts, in fertile plains and deltas, or close to shallow rivers. Massive northward and upward migration will necessarily follow if the ice caps retreat significantly. There being very little land south of the presently-inhabited bits of Africa and South America, we can expect considerable hardship south of the equator, whilst the northern tribes will have to adapt their agriculture to newly-uncovered and somewhat barren soil (it having been glaciated many times), which will not support the present population density. Ther will, however, be plenty of fish (unless the EU remains in power).

Like all species, we are a transient phenomenon, of no consequence to the physics of planetary climate.

[jeffreyH]

Alan just about sums it up.

[guest45734]

I've come across several folks who claim that we are way past saving humanity from the horrifying effects of global warming. They say that we'd crossed that line about 30-40 years ago. We can only slow the process if all the nations come together, but the seas will rise, the ice caps will melt, and the global temperature is definitely going to rise as well. Humans are going to go extinct. The planet, of course, will prevail.

Do you think this is true?

Yes the planet will prevail regardless, sea levels are going to continue rising and anyone living on the coast in 100 years time may have difficulty selling their real estate as it may be under water. As the oceans get warmer, the strength of storms will be stronger and more hurricanes will happen, but in your short life time you will hardly notice the change in weather except to note it never used to be this hot or windy when you were a child. Politicians globally are morons are will do the bare minimum  way toooo late to have any effect.

Advice buy a boat and go sailing because there is nothing you can do to stop global warming induced by burning  fossil fuels, especially if a few transient volcanos decide to add a blip to the global temperature as well. If you want to move to the equator there are no hurricanes but it can be a little hot and humid, unless you turn on the AC and heat the planet a bit     more.

 

[Earthscienceguy]

If the geologic record is examined the earth has not had polar ice caps for most of the past 600 million years. 

The current CO2 level is at 400 ppm but during the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods the level of CO2 was anywhere between 1000 and 3000.  The dinosaurs that lived during that period seemed flourish fairly well.  Until that dreadful meterite mucked everything up. 

You could even make the case that the "meteorite" that killed the dinosaurs (or some other event) caused the earth to go into this period in which the C02 level is has been so low. 

When the CO2 levels where much higher on the earth the geologic record seems to indicate that plant life seemed to flourish to a greater extend.  And this idea has been collaborated with experimental evidence which has been preformed on plants in the lab. 

So I am not quite sure why you would think that the human race would become extinct.  When the Earth has flourished in the past with higher levels of CO2. 

[chiralSPO]

1) The Earth will definitely be fine.
2) There will almost certainly still be life on Earth for millions of years to come.
3) People are a resilient bunch, and may well last another few millennia (maybe more, who knows!)
4) The climate will probably find another equilibrium point, possibly not too dissimilar from that of the Jurassic

BUT

1) As far as ecological systems are concerned, the problem with global warming is NOT what the new equilibrium temperature/climate/atmospheric composition is--the problem is how QUICKLY it is changing. The sustained rate of change in CO₂ concentration and temperature is changing orders of magnitude faster than any other time in the geological record--other than the catastrophic extinction event caused by the evolution of photosynthetic organisms. It is looking quite likely that we are headed for another major extinction event (due more to changes in ocean acidity than surface temperatures at first, but ultimately the double whammy will do irreversible damage to the ecosystems that are currently in place--and many, many species will go extinct). The only organisms that are able to adapt to such rapid changes in environment are people, who can advance our technology and society at a mind-blowing pace, and small, simple organisms that can evolve at a mind-blowing pace. Bacteria, algae, grasses, insects, deep-sea worms etc. will probably do just fine. Deciduous trees, macrofauna, fish, and corals are likely screwed.

2) As far as society is concerned, there is going to be a lot of turmoil caused by changing weather patterns and sea levels. Wars will be fought over the new prime real estate, and coastlines will recede into the ocean probably leading to significant climate-related migration. (If people thought the dust bowl of the 1930s was bad...) This won't happen overnight--but over the course of the next century, the effects will be unavoidable and will have major ramifications for the geopolitical landscape.

Another BUT!!!

Just because we know it's going to be bad no matter what we do, doesn't mean we should do nothing! Our choices are do nothing and accept the end of civilization as we know it, work hard to prevent the damage, and ameliorate the unavoidable consequences, or something in between.

I provide the analogy: if you are in a car accelerating along the highway, and you see a brick wall in front of you, do you a) keep accelerating, b) take your foot off the gas, c) take your foot off the gas and start applying the brakes and look to see if there is an embankment to skid along before slamming into the wall?

[alancalverd]

The simplest solution costs nothing, requires no effort, and guarantees our successors a better life than we have. Make fewer humans.

[syhprum]

if you are a subsistence farmer you need lots of kids to run the place ,how do we cope with this problem let them move to more northern climes ?  not a vote winning solution or hope they die out not considered ethical ! 

[chris]

if you are a subsistence farmer you need lots of kids to run the place ,how do we cope with this problem

@alancalverd is correct - population is the cause of this problem and the only long term solution is population control. The way to achieve that is through education. All the evidence I have seen shows that education and birth rate are inversely related. As people become better educated and financially independent (especially women) family size falls.

To my mind, the best investment the world can make in curbing future climate change is to spend as much as we can afford educating the masses. The predicted population growth is greatest in areas of lowest education. Once people have skills other than a subsistence existence then economics will do the rest...

[mrsmith2211]

More particulate matter will slow warming, go coal electric plants without scrubber!

[alancalverd]

Re: subsistence farming:  It has been pointed out that 80% of the Ugandan population works on the land, but there is a shortage of food; less than 5% of the UK population works on the land, and the shops are full. If we halved the UK population but retained the same number of farm workers,  the UK would be more than selfsufficient in food. Ugandan soil is fertile and the climate allows almost continuous cropping, whereas the UK is effectively frozen and dark for 3 months and parched for another 3. It's a question of organisation, not manpower.

[jeffreyH]

No one in power wants to admit that they have no control of events. Their egos will not allow it. So they try to rationalise it as an economic opportunity. This is then something that they can control.

[alancalverd]

Just looked up the numbers. You need 2 acres of land (two soccer pitches) to feed a family of 4 to US standards, including a reasonable quantity of meat, eggs and milk. Vegans can survive on a bit less (more space for protein plants, none for animals). How many people does it take to work 2 acres? Two adults and a teenager can do it without machinery, or half an adult with a mini-tractor.

That's the problem with "subsistence farming" - no specialisation, so no effective use of skills and equipment. Very few small farmers  in the UK own a combine harvester, or a scythe for that matter. You pay a contractor who has big, efficient machines and services  dozens of farms. You could mess about growing an acre of everything, or plant an acre of wheat or peas that can be harvested at peak yield in 15 minutes and you can swap for fruit or potatoes: it's a risk, but overall the integrated trading society is as resilient as self-sufficient individual families, and a lot less labor-intensive.