being what it is we will act on climate change when the consequences of not doing so are widely perceived as being far worse than they'd be if we continued to act as we are. Perhaps the thing that bothers me most is that the cat-fight over climate has led people to ignore habitat loss. We are overseeing the obliteration of hundreds of thousands of species. The cognitive frailties of humanity, our inability to see the big picture, our mental short cuts are going to have an unpleasant ending. 

Still. I console myself with the knowledge that when the worm turns, it will turn completely. I think there will be a revision of the way we live. And there's debate on this topic. People are beginning to care. And people do love nature. P'raps what's coming is the multiplicity of disaster we simply had to have. 

And I am fully supportive of such solutions, I agree with pretty much every measure you proposed in the early posts. Indeed, the only proposed solution I have rejected out of hand is Kyoto because I don't believe it would decrease GHG emissions one iota and would simply serve to charge the US money and give it to petty dictators. And a few other things I have suggested would not be particularly effective but don't necessarily oppose.

But the reality is that if the fear mongers are right, such steps are nowhere near large enough to curb global GHG emissions enough to prevent global warming. So the most sensible approach is to find solutions to the potential problems, rather than run around hysterically declaring the end of the world. The world isn't going to end, we will simply face a few challenges that may or may not require a change in our lifestyle. None of the challenges that we will face are impossible to deal with, and most of them really are not that difficult compared to some of the challenges our ancestors faced. 

So the sea level rises- it isn't going to happen overnight. People are not going to wake up one morning and discover their whole city is underwater short of another Katrina like set of circumstances where a levy fails flooding a city that we already know is below sea level. We are not going to wake up one day and discover it is impossible to grow any apples in Washington at all. If it does happen it will be a series of years where apple production in Washington is below normal, perhaps a decline in quality, which will encourage attempts to grow apples elsewhere.

Ok, it happens, we will survive it and deal with it. Humans have dealt with similar challenges in time periods where they didn't have the benefit of near instantaneous communication and nowhere near our technology or scientific knowledge.  

Because it isn't ideal for apples and citrus crops like oranges bring in much larger profits. Apples can be grown in Florida, there just isn't a point since they can't compete with northern apple states. 

http://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/1685/#b

http://www.garden.org/foodguide/browse/fruit/citrus/1365

The National Gardening Association seems to believe it is possible to grow oranges in Maine now. The trees need to be moved inside during cold weather making it impractical for commercial farming (and really all but the most determined hobbyist). If it gets that much warmer, maybe someday in the far far future there will be orange plantations in Maine. Pretty sure I will be dead before that. Just an example of we may face challenges, but we can overcome them.   

To feed the world worrying about tropical fruits is a waste of time. We don't feed the world with tropical fruits, we feed it with grains- corn, wheat, soy and rice. Worrying about the possible negative effects on those is far more relevant, and we can grow them pretty much anywhere as long as we are able to transport enough water.

The shellfish is a problem we might not be able to solve. We can prevent extinction of common varieties by farming them outside of the ocean in controlled environments, but if shellfish actually start going extinct lobster dinners will become significantly more expensive. Sad, but not really a big factor in feeding the world. I have not heard anyone propose a plausible solution, but from my understanding most believe that simply reducing GHG emissions now will not prevent the further acidification of the ocean. Am I wrong? 

The best way to help third world countries is to help them turn into first world countries. That means letting them experience the industrial revolution, building fossil fuel power plants and using modern farming equipment to make their farms more efficient. Ironically, the best way to protect third world countries from GW is to encourage them to increase their GHG emissions.

I think you are being pessimistic, but admittedly I am an optimist. 

"And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis."

Funny how noone has yet suggested that global warming is the apocalypse.

Plenty of people have suggested just that. The issue is whether or not such predictions actually have scientific evidence to back them up.

He changed his position on climate change, but did he really say they had evidence it would be extremely bad? Your quote implied that he merely personally believed it would be bad. I'm not extremely worried about Global Warming or Climate Change, but I don't deny that our climate IS changing. What says that it will be extremely serious negative change? I'm not taking a stance in opposition to GW, I just would like to see actual projections backed up by real world changes. We are well safe the most pessimistic scenarios from decades ago, are we not?

Thanks for all the links, I'll look through them.

I've heard that after a certain temperature increase there is a feedback loop that could cause everything to get much worse (exponentially? idk), is that what you are talking about?

Yes, you inescapably ARE.

"That was from around seven months ago. You think people can't research and become more confident of their knowledge in a subject in seven months?"

You think someone can go from being completely ignorant on a subject to being an expert in 7 months?!

Guess we can get rid of schools. Clearly they are unnecessary if someone can turn absolute ignorance into an expert meteorologist without any education in 7 months.

Lol. Are you an expert meteorologist?

People can mistake their own knowledge on a subject. The arguments and evidence speak for themselves when in a discussion. You are the one who chooses to ignore discussion over insults and put-downs.

So? I have not been arguing climatology with you, we have been arguing about farming and air conditioning, two subjects I do know a little about. Is there anywhere in this thread I have predicted what the climate will do? At most I have made the predictions of others knowledge and linked to their research papers and I have expressed skepticism of the worst case scenario predictions. Most of my argument in this thread has been that we have the ability to deal with the effects of GW and that cutting GHG emissions enough to make a substantial difference is unlikely to ever happen because of political reasons, none of those positions require extensive knowledge on climatology since my arguments remain the same whether the world warms 1 degree or 10. It requires knowledge of farming, of which I have a little, and knowledge of real estate and politics of which I have a lot since I have been professionally involved in both fields.  

@ Beyond
Yeah actually, predicting that climate change won't significantly affect the Southern US is you pretending you know what the fuck you are talking about, when you clearly don't and have admitted as much.

You also don't strike me as knowing much about farming or air conditioning, since everything you've said on the subject is simply wrong or completely unproven.

We do have the ability to deal with global warming, and it is not the apocalypse. That does not mean Texas and California won't be deserts in a hundred years.

Show me one comment I made on the subject that is wrong and I have not supported. Then provide a single source that provides evidence to the contrary of what I said. Meanwhile, I won't hold my breath. 

Oh so I am right. Thanks. That is all I have been arguing the whole thread is that GW isn't the end of the world and we can deal with it.

Texas and California have deserts now, so I have no reason to believe they won't still be deserts in 100 years. People will also continue to live in Texas and California in 100 years too. 

@ Beyond

Supporting a claim with an extremely limited survey is not supporting a claim. I don't have to do research or provide evidence it is wrong, because it isn't a standard of evidence in the first place. It is automatically called into question. You are automatically wrong, just by attempting to use non-evidence as evidence.

"Oh so I am right. Thanks. That is all I have been arguing the whole thread is that GW isn't the end of the world and we can deal with it."

If that was all you were arguing, there'd never have been an argument.

I have no issue with the number of homes/apartments/condos that have air conditioning.  My issue is the number of people who don't turn them on - ever.  No matter how hot it is, because they can't afford to run them.

I don't know if stats for that number is available.  But it is far more relevant than the number of physical units.  That, and will/do we have the electrical capacity to run all those air conditioners?  Sometimes, sure.  All the time in all areas - don't know.  This summer I didn't hear of black/brown outs.  Maybe it isn't the issue it was a few years ago.