Basic Response to Denial Regarding the Ecological Cataclysm

CLIMATE CHANGE

Consider the following evidence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect 

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth#Modern_conditions 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#US_Senate_committee_testimony 

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_ha00410c.pdf 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_index#Table_of_values 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution 

Arrhenius laid the foundation for the connection between CO2 emmissions and global warming. This goes back to the late nineteenth century and early twentieth. Note that Arrhenius' arguments are based in the scientific work of earlier authors. 

The graphs from Earth.org represent the data that most people are working with. Note that there are figures going way back, and for CO2 we are currently going off the charts, especially in terms of human existence (going back probably just 4 million years, but not more than 13 million) and more especially in terms of human agriculture and city-dwelling (going back only 10 thousand years -- the Holocene). The most recent CO2 measurements are very accurate, coming from the Keeling Curve. 

Compare the Earth.org graphs with the hothouse and icehouse Earth periods. Note the discussion under "Modern Coniditions." Following normal climate patterns from when humans were not around, we would expect to be heading back into a glaciation. As Arrhenius noted, the increase in anthropogenic CO2 concentration would be good up to a point to boost agriculture. It also could help generally extend the Holocene -- but that is only up to a point. 

In "Target Atmospheric CO2," James Hansen and his team put together a well reasoned argument that CO2 concentrations should be ketp at (or now brought back down to) 350 ppm in order to maintain argiculture, city-dwelling and international society. 

CO2 only remains in the atmosphere for about 100 years. So, if human beings were wiped out completely today, the ecosystem probably would revert back to lower CO2 concentration and cooling. But, if in the next few decades we build in ever-higher concentrations, then we could kick the system off kilter. This very likely would result in mid-term (100 to 1000 years) extreme high temperatures and high humidity in most places -- beyond what the human body can bear (see the Heat Index table). 

There is some evidence that extreme heat index events are becoming more frequent, but maybe the effects of high CO2 concentration haven't set in yet. However, with more elevated CO2 concentrations stretching over decades, extreme heat index days will likely stretch over months of each year in many of the most populous regions (e.g. India). Such extended extreme heat would also disrupt argiculture as we know it (along with the inherent cold snaps that come along with extreme heat). Extreme agricultural adaptation may become necessary any year now. As we have seen recently in Yemen and Somolia, we don't have any capacity for such adaptation. 

After a mid-term period of extreme heat, all bets would be off for what the climate system would settle into after that -- or that it would settle down at all, maybe going past the tipping point to run-away heating, or maybe just going erratic. 

The big worry -- as I see it -- is the future mid-term, especially since we have so many more people to worry about with recent growth in the last few decades. Even without extreme heat, agriculture would be pushed to the limit. We've only been able to feed the growing population so far based on the "Green Revolution" made possible by fossil fuels. If the methods of the "Green Revolution" can't cope with extreme heat and cold snaps -- which it very likely cannot -- then the death rate is going to increase for a while (a few decades, or off and on for hundreds of years). The high death rate will likely be self-correcting. With a population depression and the concominant social collapses, the CO2 concentration will level off and come down to get us back into the normal groove of the climate system, and we will get back to heading for a glaciation. 

This all assumes that we can go through the social collapses without even a small-scale nuclear exchange (like between Pakistan and India). If we have any nuclear warfare, then we're going to have immediate and dramatic famine, die-off and glaciation -- after which -- after 1000 years maybe -- we can start getting back to some normal climate cycle with a very small remnant of our recent population level. 

Whether nuclear winter is part of the picture or not, the question is: How far do you think we can go beyond Hansen's 350 ppm red line? We're already at 420 ppm -- 20% over. We know this is pretty extreme based on the very accurate readings going back 800,000 years. And we know that CO2 concentration drives the greenhouse effect. 

You can't question the basic scientific theory from a purely philosophical position. You would have to do a detailed undermining of the ice core studies, which would probably involve similar field work. There is little room to undermine the principle that elevated CO2 concetration leads to elevated temperature. This is a well-established fact of nature. And everyone seems to agree that the burning of fossil fuels increases CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I assume that you agree with that. 

The only thing left is a practical/ethical evaluation that weighs the utility of fossil fuels versus the human lives sacrificed to that utility. At a minimal level I assume you agree that fossil fuel usage directly causes premature deaths through lung disease and cancer. Beyond such direct effects, the main factor is contribution to the greenhouse effect. 

From a philosophical point of view, the real question is how much mid-term population decline and social collapse is worth the short-term utility of our current fossil fuel consumption rate. Obviously, we can't just keep increasing the rate of consumption. We would soon run out. There must be at least some leveling off and eventual decline. An immediate cut off of fossil fuels would likely cause as much die off and social collapse in the short-term as it would avert in the mid-term. So, the question is how to moderate the leveling off and decline in fossil fuel consumption. 

One way to think about that question is in terms of Hansen's 350 ppm red line. But again, you can't argue with the basic climate science. You can, however, argue with the more general and vague implications for human society. Note that Hansen gives a plus or minus range of error of 100 ppm. Maybe the real number is 550. This is highly unlikely, but maybe you are willing to take that gamble with population die off and social collapse. If you're going to get that specific, then it would be good to check more recent studies to see how far that plus or minus has been honed down. 

At any rate, thinking philosophically, it probably makes more sense to think in terms of similarity to an ancient geological period. Hansen puts the 450 ppm reading at approximately 50 million years ago. That is during the very extreme hot period after the extinction of the dinosaurs. Do you think we could adequately survive in a climate like that? Or, maybe we don't even have to worry about that sort of extreme over the mid-term. Perhaps CO2 would have accumulate for several thousands of years before we get there. But there certainly will be some increase. Maybe over the mid-term we will only get to temperatures like those from 15 million years ago. Or maybe you think we can go way over Hansen's red line in the short-term, and then bring the level back down quickly before most of the heating sets in. But keep in mind that once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it will stay there for about 100 years. And keep in mind that our current "business as usual" approach is on the Keeling Curve, which appears to be exponential. There's been about a 31% increase over the last 60 years, so maybe the curve gets us to 420 ppm * 1.31 = 551 ppm over the next 60 years. There are many factors to weigh, and many ways that you could justify the gamble. A lot of it has to do with the relative values you place on things, which is the province of practical philosophy. What sort of gamble do you think we should take, and why should we all go along with you in the bet?