[Just thinking]

Being so keen to conquer planet B, shouldn’t we think more about planet A?

If planet B was a possible place to escape to in the event of earth's destruction then that would be fine as long as the people that don't get to go don't have to pay for it. If we spend many trillions on this technology we do without now for someone else to benefit later. My budget does not stretch that far. Beter fix up this place so our children will have somewhere to live.

[TommyJ]

Being so keen to conquer planet B, shouldn’t we think more about planet A?

If planet B was a possible place to escape to in the event of earth's destruction then that would be fine as long as the people that don't get to go don't have to pay for it. If we spend many trillions on this technology we do without now for someone else to benefit later. My budget does not stretch that far. Beter fix up this place so our children will have somewhere to live.

Not to mention, that in the best case, there wouldn't be enough spaceships and alien homes to transfer 7 billion.

I have something to say (add optimism a bit).
For the Earth.
There are some good examples for using new areas to build cities (e.g. Cairo is designing a new city nearby).
My thinking is that we should increase reclaimed areas and inhabit them. There are many thousands of kilometres killed and deserted.
Why not 'colonize' them, it would be easier than Mars.

Nature has it's processes, we should THINK before and ACT on Earth, truly. Here is not zero done, but lots and lots more to do.
The global on-Earth problems tend to be highlighted from the darkest side.
I wouldn’t diminish them, still.

Nature takes its time with changes as a process, so do we at quite a successful rate locally.
For sure, our reactiveness should come to more proactiveness. In many cases success examples work better than just threats in numbers.

Either 'global warming' or 'the sea level rise' rather than local or averaged data is declared.
'Millions of the population are threatened by sea level rise’. But not mentioned are those from areas with drastically grown near-sea populations and small islands ones.

'Average temperature rise' - would be taken from particular changes in reported zones, as it is difficult to get reliable data all over the World in a short periods and make correlations. That is why, for instance, glaciers’ example is manipulating the headlines.

For the last 15 years, really global temperature rise is reported, compared to about 50 preceding years.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/charlie-martin/2010/02/23/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive-n14350

Data is being manipulated or giving not enough explanation every time. Even mathematically, the trend with current spike may not be predicted correctly.

[Just thinking]

For the last 15 years, really global temperature rise is reported, compared to about 50 preceding years.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/charlie-martin/2010/02/23/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive-n14350

Data is being manipulated or giving not enough explanation every time. Even mathematically, the trend with current spike may not be predicted correctly.

Yes, I agree data is unreliable to predict the future as there is not enuff data from the past. Another problem is the sun it can change its output at the drop of a hat and change the whole ball game. The sun is in a rather strange state right now as it is well on its way to a very low cycle this can lead to a big freeze quite the opposite to global warming. The sun has the largest dominating force over the earth's climate and we have not really been studying it for very long.

[TommyJ]

Exactly, there are lots of data that is hard to cooperate and put together for any prediction.

The sun and Earth have processes which are not short-term and natural.
Some to observe and mitigate threats, where possible, some to put effort to what we already know.

They tell us Earth should go wilder.
Atmospheric and ocean flows changes are causing new tornadoes, floods, freezing and so on. It is unstable.

A lot of impact due to human making forests and animals going extinct.
Example, sharks  (predators) killing is destroying the food chain. That causes boosting one population of species and causing extinction of others. Migration paths.

This kind of unbalance speeds up unnatural instability.

[alancalverd]

Lots of interacting questions here.

Humans have bred ourselves to a population that cannot live sustainably at a standard we aspire to.

We have also devised political systems that inhibit migratory response to climate change.

We also seem to have developed bizarre beliefs that we are somehow able to influence the climate.

And politico-economic systems that demand ever-increasing production and consumption.

Until we learn to behave properly and think straight, there is no point in exporting human stupidity to another planet.

That said, I'd happily volunteer for a once-off, one-way, purely scientific (no colonisation or terraforming allowed!) mission to Mars. Affordable, interesting, and possibly as inspirational as the Moon program was.

Having reviewed the first Moon landing, if any priest, politician, economist or philosopher wanted to talk to me, I wouldn't pick up the phone - life is too short to deal with such parasites. So it will have to be a privately-funded venture.

[Bored chemist]

We also seem to have developed bizarre beliefs that we are somehow able to influence the climate.

Science is not a bizarre belief.
Need I remind you that you can fly?

[TommyJ]

Apologies in advance for long read and repetitions.

A: An ocean of information about what we already know about the Earth in detailed investigations, simulations and forecasts. History. Technology.
I would add Earth human bearing capacity.
National agencies, World agencies, research institutions. Improvement plans and on-going work.

How to survive. Regression models put unfortunate numbers.
Every human contribution to global warming is our lifestyle. The overall impact shown by observation is ~1.5C for the last 50 years and ~2.0C during the last 150 years. Considering the stability of natural effects during this period.
Although, here are some specific periods that appear to have warmed or cooled faster than can be explained based on r natural variability during that period.

There are no accumulated observations of natural variability, which might be larger than we currently think.There seems no strong evidence for it.

B: Certainly, going to any other planet missions are essential. At least several humans would try it first.
Learn living there.
Moving 7 billion forecasts wouldn’t be near imagined possible. If magically so, all humanity changes mentality instantly.

“Our business is to uproot the roots of evil in the fields that are known to us in order to pass on to the heirs a pure land, ready for sowing. What kind of weather they will have is not for us to decide.”

Now we judge by today's activities of space exploration vs Earth preservation.
Obviously, for Earth we should go faster and proactive to bring stabilization as soon as possible. This is a process of years.

Going to Venus, Mars, the Moon, I believe brings technology push. Ability to do it now pushes the occasions.

Earth vs Space is not like that. I believe Earth together with space. Technology, Space and Earth agencies cooperation are win-win if balanced.
For both branches of the same survival aim they work.