Slate: Climate Change Vastly Worse Than Previously Thought

[villager]

A new study published in Nature suggests that climate change is even worse than scientists had previously anticipated, upgrading the forecast from "dangerous" to "catastrophic." According to the study's authors, temperatures are currently snared in an upward spiral: As earth gets hotter, the heat prevents sunlight-reflecting clouds from forming, trapping more heat and further exacerbating the problem. The result could be a temperature climb of 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

The alarming report follows yet another confirmation, this time by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that humans are almost indubitably the drivers of climate change. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed concern, stating that "if this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it."

But the unnerving escalaton in climate change is unlikely to be abated without significant U.S. support—and for the time being, the Republican Party insists on stonewalling any efforts to offset the human-caused warming process. Given that the U.S. is the second biggest contributor to climate change, its participation in any international resolution is absolutely vital. Yet with one major political party blocking such support, the odds seem increasingly likely that 2100 will, indeed, bring with it a "catastrophic" increase of global heat.

<snip>

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/31/climate_change_vastly_worse_than_previously_thought.html

[Moostache]

1. Its time for the GOP to own their actions and subsequent consequences...

"Yet with one major political party blocking such support, the odds seem increasingly likely that 2100 will, indeed, bring with it a "catastrophic" increase of global heat."

THAT is the money quote here. Scientists are legitimately terrified by the data we already see, and still the GOP, in defense of the profit margins of its large donors like the Koch brothers and their ilk deny any and all links. When one party of a two party system becomes completely untethered to reality, its time for them to be labelled as such in every discussion and every news story.

Instead of the asinine "Some say...", we should have the following replace it - "A majority of anti-science irrational Republicans are still actively denying the obvious."

[pangaia]

75. That's not goping to happen.

It is time for elected DEMOCRATICS to get their collective acts together, get some backbone, play wack-a-mole and get out in front of this. Just stand up in front of cameras and tell the truth, over and over and over....

Fat chance, eh!

[theHandpuppet]

93. The GOP should be classified as a terrorist organization

They are a very real threat to the survival of this planet.

[RoccoR5955]

2. I do what I can.

WTF is everyone else waiting for?

[Javaman]

65. They are waiting for it to be on sale at wal-mart. nt

[alfredo]

3. Our greed overpowers our survival instinct.

[AgingAmerican]

5. The polluters believe

...that their wealth will insulate them from the damage they cause.

[alfredo]

6. They are the "elect."

[hatrack]

89. Indeed yes . . .

And if they can just accumulate enough money, they'll never die!!!

[alfredo]

90. Calvinist who think they are predestined to be saved, and nothing they do in life can change that?

[AverageJoe90]

4. Unfortunately, the study quoted here seems to be *extremely* flawed.

As I pointed out elsewhere, temperature rise hasn't been all that underestimated, and in fact, if anything, the middle models have been the most on target so far; if climate sensitivity really was supposed to be as high as 5*C per doubling by 2100 we'd be far warmer than we are now; right now, we're at around .65-.7*C as of now with 400 ppm in the atmosphere; this would support an overall estimate of about 2-2.5*C, maybe 3*C at the most, per doubling by 2100, and that's with moderate(though not quite severe) feedbacks assumed for the latter.

I'm sorry, but unless they took into account other possible feedbacks that we haven't been informed about here, they may need to go back to the drawing board for this one.

[joshcryer]

10. "the mistakes ... predict less warming, not ... more"

"Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect," said Sherwood. "But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more."

He added: "Sceptics may also point to the 'hiatus' of temperatures since the end of the 20th century, but there is increasing evidence that this inaptly named hiatus is not seen in other measures of the climate system, and is almost certainly temporary."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-2100-climate?view=desktop

[AverageJoe90]

12. Sherwood, unfortunately, was definitely incorrect on this one.

As can be seen, the most pessimistic models have been quite a bit off course in terms of temperature rises.....well, of course, so were the most optimistic ones as well, so that leaves the middle course, which is about 3*C per doubling with some notable feedbacks or about 2-2.5*C without any significant feedbacks.

[joshcryer]

22. That is incorrect, sadly.

Sherwood is correct.

[AverageJoe90]

25. Not on temperature rise, no. nt

[joshcryer]

29. His efforts back up Fasullo and Trenberth.

Clouds = positive feedback therefore models that assumed negative or neutral feedback are wrong.

[AverageJoe90]

37. That's not the problem.

The problem is that real world data does not support the higher estimates of climate sensitivity(just as it didn't end up supporting the most optimistic estimates of 20 years ago).

[joshcryer]

39. This is demonstrably false as the RH index matches the less cloudy model.

The fact that clouds are a positive feedback is not controversial as it's been known for some time now. What's controversial here is that the modelers took it into account when they did their meta-analysis of the models.

[AverageJoe90]

40. "The fact that clouds are a positive feedback is not controversial....." Never said otherwise.

However, the issue remains that the real world data doesn't support the claims of 4-5*C without major feedbacks adding on to that.

[joshcryer]

42. The data once applied to the models does.

The models must be based on observational evidence. For the longest time we didn't know if clouds were a negative or positive feedback. Deniers and "skeptics" always claimed that they were a negative or neutral feedback. But they simply are not. The magnitude to which they are a positive feedback is unknown, but the baseline certainly moved beyond 3.0C which is unheard of.

[AverageJoe90]

44. "but the baseline certainly moved beyond 3.0C....." Only in this study, Josh. Only in this study.

Pretty much every other mainstream source (yes, including the much trashed IPCC) still says that the baseline is around 2-3*C, and no higher than 3*C per doubling without truly substantial feedbacks. And the temperature records that we have right now are supportive of that; now, it does remain possible that methane emissions could end up becoming substantially higher than what's been estimated(it honestly could go either way, really), which would push things up a few degrees by 2100. But 5*C is not supportable, especially not without the occurrence of major feedbacks.

Again, if they considered something other than just water vapor, then I'd like to see it. Until then, however, the case remains closed.

[joshcryer]

48. Where is the study rebuffing it?

Where is the evidence that they're over estimating?

In fact they showed that the models are underestimating.

[NickB79]

60. I'm afraid you're arguing with a brick wall, Josh

AverageJoe and I had this same dance in a previous thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024211969

I provided several links, to several studies, all for not. No substantial rebuttal articles or studies, but a repetitive refrain of "but that's only X number of studies!"

I'm afraid there aren't enough studies or analyses in the world to change some people's minds.

[XemaSab]

19. Too bad DU doesn't ban people for being deniers

[AverageJoe90]

21. Oh, get over it. Honestly.

If I was an actual denier, don't you think it would have become totally obvious by now? But, the truth is, I'm not, and it isn't hard to look for the evidence supporting the fact that I do indeed accept climate change as a reality(in fact, you can find some right here on this very thread).

Then again, perhaps you have a far broader definition of what is a "denier" than I do.....mine is just the normal one, that's all.

[NoOneMan]

32. "don't you think it would have become totally obvious by now?"

[AverageJoe90]

51. With your unintelligent snark aside.....

Why do you think your fellow doomers are the only ones that have had any real issues with what I've said on the subject?

[lake loon]

76. "doomers"??

That gives you away right there.

[Systematic Chaos]

33. "...I do indeed accept climate change as a reality..."

Terms and Conditions:

1) Climate Change Acceptance (tm) only applies in U.S. states and territories beginning with the letter 'z', and only on days ending in 'q'.
2) Management reserves all rights to cancel Climate Change Acceptance (tm) at any time, pending more studies.
3) Your Climate Change Acceptance (tm) shall not be warrantied to any loss or damage due to inclement weather.
4) The word "denier," when used in reference to your Climate Change Acceptance, shall only be understood to mean either a unit of measurement for silk, rayon or nylon; or, in the absence of any silk, rayon or nylon may instead refer to an obscure French coin.
5) For further information, please call our customer support hotline at 1-800-C02-IS-LIFE or visit our website at www.SmokeMoarCuzTobaccoIsTotallySafe.com

[AverageJoe90]

35. Um.....what?

Whatever the punchline was, it seems to have been lost in the gobbledygook. You did get a couple of laughs outta me, though, at least, give ya credit for that.

[joshcryer]

56. It's a shame.

Too many deniers and trolls allowed to have their way here.

[ScottyEss]

68. Too bad DU bans anybody.

Not a fan of echo chambers. I hope DU isn't an echo chamber.

[mdbl]

81. Some people need to be banned

If they spew unintelligent crap, like that heard on right wing radio or TV, they should be banned.

[NoOneMan]

31. Write them a nasty letter with all your science accolades then

And finish your own climate dissertation letting us know the truth. I'm waiting on that

[Notafraidtoo]

52. I assume you do not know about the ocean temperature increase.

Skeptics often point to average temperature not increasing much over the past 12 or so years but that heat that is missing from the atmosphere is in the ocean, the ocean is heating up and by a lot, in fact that is how the cycle works. one heats up and stops than the other heats up.

This is why you see predictions are worse than we thought, we are in the ocean cycle and its worse than expected.

[AverageJoe90]

54. I've heard about that and that actually does seem to be pretty well supported.

It would definitely explain why atmospheric temperature underwent a slowdown in the mid '90s.

[joshcryer]

87. What slowdown in the mid-90s?

[AverageJoe90]

91. Atmospheric warming, of course. (shouldn't that have been obvious, really?) nt

[joshcryer]

97. The data does not show a slowdown.

[Vashta Nerada]

77. What are your credentials?

Why should I believe you over the scientists in Nature?

[AverageJoe90]

78. This is only a single study.....not universally accepted, either.

And one that already has run into problems. Even a simple look at overall temperature records pokes some pretty good holes in the particular claims of 4-5*C worth of short-term (by 2100, that is) climate sensitivity. Had this been more of a 2150/2200 deal, that would make quite a bit more sense.

But unless there's more to this study than what's been revealed in the article, such as possible methane scenarios, etc., then I'm afraid that closes the case: The basics themselves appear to be solid, but some of the figures are definitely off for sure.

[gristy]

7. "Vastly worse than previously thought"? Don't think so. This is in line with 2007 predictions.

The 2007 IPCC report predicts a rise of between 0.3C - 6.4C by 2100, depending on the model.
That's 0.5 to 11.5 degrees F.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

[joshcryer]

11. CO2 doubling was thought to be 1.5C.

They're saying it's very likely twice that and probably around 4.0C which is a fucking catastrophe.

[AverageJoe90]

15. Very true.

Of course, I think everyone here can agree that a 4+*C rise, especially in just one century(only bested by the rise that occurred at the end of the last ice age in terms of pure speed!) would have long-standing severe consequences for life on this planet, even us humans.

However, though, the most reliable estimates so far have fallen within the 2-2.25*C range, based on actual temp records(we're now at around .65*C-.7*C), though it can be pointed out that with even minimal amounts of noticeable feedbacks, this may end up being at around 2.5*C and 3*C is not all that farfetched either.

The problem here is, at least from what we are told here, that this rather radical jump supposedly came from just remodelling water vapor alone. If this is indeed the case, then there are obviously some major flaws in the research that may require a do-over, as it were. But if not, then some clarification would be appreciated, TBH.

[joshcryer]

30. This is incorrect. The paper in OP says it's closer to 4.0C.

Please cite a current paper that says it is 2-2.25C.

[AverageJoe90]

34. Josh, this was just that one study.

The outlier Sherwood study has no bearing on what I said. I have no exact links but for the IPCC modelling from last year's draft and this year's final product have suggested a sensitivity of roughly 2.5*C per doubling, last I checked, give or take a couple of tenths(and certainly no higher than 3*C).

What I certainly am correct on is that Sherwood's conclusions re: climate sensitivity rates by 2100(as in as high as 5*C by said point) are unsupportable just by looking at real world data alone. ~400 ppm as of this year and we've only warmed up to maybe .7*C above normal. That doesn't, at all, support a 4-5*C sensitivity rate by 2100, at least not without some of the (other) worst-case feedback scenarios happening later on this century, none of which are that likely to occur.

If there's any clarification as to what exactly they took into account, besides water vapor, I'd like to see it. And if I happen to be wrong, I'll issue a mea culpa. But I need the proof first.

[joshcryer]

38. It is not an outlier, it is a meta-analysis.

It cannot be an outlier unless someone comes along and says the science is wrong, which because it is based on real world observations of cloud concentrations, it most certainly is not.

[AverageJoe90]

41. Still not getting it, I see.

"It cannot be an outlier unless someone comes along and says the research is wrong,"

Fixed that for you, btw(because this study *is* an outlier and not universally accepted.). And yes, there are problems with this because the real world temperature data doesn't support such a high climate sensitivity, at least not by 2100(if this were 2200, 2150 maybe, it might be a different story), anyway, not without some really major feedbacks, none of which are likely.

[joshcryer]

43. The study hasn't even been published.

And you have the audacity to claim that it's not been universally accepted? I've looked at the data that supports the study and meta-analysis and like Hideo Shiogama and Tomoo Ogura I see nothing that is a deal breaker. The science is absolutely sound.

It doesn't take a very large cloud feedback to result in the temperatures predicted. After all, "2 more C isn't that big of a deal" right? You are acting as if this is some kind of major ground breaking feedback when it's just nothing on the scheme of things, but it ads up over the area in which the feedback is going to affect the climate.

[AverageJoe90]

46. You still haven't shown me how or where I was wrong.

Again, if you have a link to the paper, I'd like to see it. And if the study took more than just water vapor to any real account, then I'll walk back my harsher criticisms. But

You are acting as if this is some kind of major ground breaking feedback when it's just nothing on the scheme of things,

Actually, that was the same conclusion that I came to, believe it or not. But that apparently wasn't the idea the good Prof. Sherwood and company had, though.

but it ads up over the area in which the feedback is going to affect the climate.

Things add up, yes. But as you yourself (ironically) just pointed out, water vapor isn't exactly groundbreaking. And the truth is, it is partly because of this as well that water vapor alone could not be enough to make climate sensitivity as high as 5*C by 2100. Even 4*C is too high.

[joshcryer]

50. How can you dismiss the data on mixing?

It is known that stratospheric mixing will result in fewer clouds as the planet warms. By saying that "it could not be enough to make climate sensitivity that high" you must show how the effect isn't real.

[AverageJoe90]

53. You really don't get it, do you?

"By saying that "it could not be enough to make climate sensitivity that high" you must show how the effect isn't real."

That isn't part of the problem. I never once took issue with cloud mixing theory; it's been around for a while last I checked.

The issue remains that the claims of 4-5*C per doubling remain *highly* dubious, especially given temperature records, amongst other things.

Again, if you have a link to a PDF copy of the study, I'd like to you show it to me; as I said, if they took more than just water vapor(as well as cloud mixing) into account when writing this paper, then I can walk back some of my harsher criticisms. But until then, I'm sticking to them.

[joshcryer]

55. But the cloud mixing is how they conclude it.

They wouldn't magically say 3 is the baseline but closer to 4 and we're fucked unless they had a reason to do that. That reason is simply the fact that some of the models have an incorrect view on mixing.

Here, have a video made for high school students maybe you'll understand it better: http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/66549.php?from=257000

Clearly I'm making it too difficult for you because you can't simply claim that the mixing is being exaggerated as a feedback without providing data.

[AverageJoe90]

57. I watched that video earlier, btw.

But it only gave an outline of Sherwood's theory.

They wouldn't magically say 3 is the baseline but closer to 4 and we're fucked unless they had a reason to do that.

As I've tried to point out several times now, this is only *one* study.

Clearly I'm making it too difficult for you because you can't simply claim that the mixing is being exaggerated as a feedback without providing data.

It's not the mixing, but the purported extra 2-3*C(that is, for a total of up to 5*C) over the regular doubling estimates that they came up with that is the issue. Even real-world temperature records(which can be easily found anywhere, btw) don't support that high of a climate sensitivity from just that one thing by itself, especially not within the 2100 baseline; if it were 2200, it'd make more sense. But it's not. And I still haven't received the data I asked for. Is it not available for some reason? Or are you holding out on me here?

[joshcryer]

58. Of course it's one study.

The study however is a meta-analysis, it is not a critique of all climate science, it is a critique of inadequate models that have improper atmospheric mixing.

Real world temperature records are irrelevant when we have an arctic causing a temporary cooling effect. Look at the other studies by these same people, it is merely a temporary effect. By 2016 the effect will be gone and we will see the effects first hand. Yes, Joe, in 2 years. Really. Come back to your minimalist posts in 2 years and you'll see just how wrong you are.

You can't justify why the new data and new model analysis results in a 2200 result, because it's clear you're ignorant on how much cloud feedbacks have been minimized in the models. 3-4C is the likely 2100 outcome. Baseline.

[AverageJoe90]

59. So you're saying that Arctic ice will melt out completely by 2016?

I really don't see it happening in 2016, TBH, barring some truly unlikely circumstances(as in, nobody could possibly predict it without sheer amounts of dumb luck, as it were). 2020 may be a possibility, but even that's stretching it a little bit.

Real world temperature records are irrelevant when we have an arctic causing a temporary cooling effect.

Not really, bud. Not really.(furthermore, if you're saying that the Arctic is responsible for the recent slowdown in atmospheric warming, where's the proof for that?)

[joshcryer]

72. No, arctic sea ice be beyond a recovery point by 2016.

If not 2016 certainly this decade. There's no way it survives past 2020.

There will still be arctic sea ice but it will disintegrate over time.

As far as the Arctic being responsible, it's simple thermodynamics. Cold cannot move from cold to hot, heat must move from hot to cold. It sounds counter intuitive because as we're currently experencing a "cold front" the fact is that cold air is displacing the warmer area due to its higher density. However, thermodynamically the heat is moving into the Arctic (primarily through ocean convection), which is why the arctic sea ice is in such a state of melt off.

The models didn't predict significant arctic melt, therefore they could not have predicted the temporary slowdown in observed temperature increase.

[AverageJoe90]

73. My response. Make of it what you will.

There will still be arctic sea ice but it will disintegrate over time.

Well, there's no arguing with that, of course. But honestly, a complete melt-off date of 2025-28 or so is still more likely than at any time before 2020, barring a few unlikely circumstances(the collapse of 2012 comes to mind).

The models didn't predict significant arctic melt, therefore they could not have predicted the temporary slowdown in observed temperature increase.

To be fair, it is indeed true that neither of these things were predicted, but how exactly do they both tie together, in your opinion?

[joshcryer]

74. The data doesn't support your statement:

If the models didn't predict the massive ice melt how could they be able to address any cooling effect that would be caused by such a melt? The melt is causing the arctic jet stream to be larger thus pushing dense cells down causing more air to be cooled.

[AverageJoe90]

79. This does sound plausible, but I'm not seeing anything thru the PIOMAS graph, TBH.

If the models didn't predict the massive ice melt how could they be able to address any cooling effect that would be caused by such a melt? The melt is causing the arctic jet stream to be larger thus pushing dense cells down causing more air to be cooled.

If you've got something that actually collaborates this, I'd like to see it. It's just that the PIOMAS graph doesn't give that kind of specific info that you've typed here, that's all(i.e. of ice melt enlarging the jet stream).

[joshcryer]

80. This video should explain the jet stream effect:

The point of PIOMAS is that the melt is there, the data shows it's there.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. "arctic sea ice be beyond a recovery point by 2016."

If that is true (and I'm assuming it is) is there any possibility of doing anything? You can't wean the US -- let alone the entire world -- economy off of current carbon-production levels to ny appreciable reduction in the space of 2 years.

[joshcryer]

96. Geoengineering most likely.

That's why I am a climate alarmist because once the arctic is largely mush and ice free for a short period of the year there will be methane clathrate releases which will make the situation even worse.

If you implemented fee and dividend and got us off of fossil fuels in a decade you'd have a chance to prevent the need for geoengineering (basically spraying sulphates into the upper atmosphere).

But the odds of that happening are pretty much nil.

Note: geoengineering is not a solution. It can become a disaster and cause serious political reprecussions.

[cstanleytech]

8. MMmmm the temp rise isnt what concerns me, the earth has had even hotter periods in the past

after all but the real concern is for the people who are going to end up displaced due to flooding in the coastal regions.

[villager]

9. not hotter periods since humans tried to organize themselves into civilizations...

requiring massive food production, transportation, communication, et al...

[cstanleytech]

13. Thats a blink of an eye though when ya consider the age of the earth. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Exactly. That's the problem. The temperature rise is extremely fast.

Species can't adapt fast enough or move fast enough (especially trees). Those that can move find habitats getting scarcer (like alpine and sub-alpine). These effects and others ripple throughout the biome.

[villager]

26. I think that's exactly the point. Human self-delusion/civilization is but a "blink of an eye"

And reverting to Jurassic-era weather for our species is going to be quite the "experiment..."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Extinctions, droughts, water wars, wild fires, immigration, hurricanes

And you are worried about some beach front property?

Of course your concerns are not that simple or petty (please excuse the dramatization), but there is much more to worry about than sea level rise.

To the list above, we can add seniors dieing in un-air-conditioned rooms, crop failures & famines, devastation of forests by beetle invasions, riots, higher prices for food for poor people, ....

[cstanleytech]

23. Its not just beachfront property you are forgetting other facts such as

all the nuclear reactors all over the world that are on or near the oceans that will be flooded also the varies chemical plants and or dump sites.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Good points.

[pscot]

69. No problemo

When heat and drought cause widespread crop failures millions will die.

[cstanleytech]

70. Droughts come and go and in the long term for the planet they dont matter to much.

Same for heat.
The bigger thing to worry about though is the impact the change in sea levels will have on things like the varies nuclear plants as well as any chemical and or biological waste sites that get flooded.

[deutsey]

14. I read things like this and I grow incredibly sad about my children's future n/t

[tclambert]

63. Space colonies. Cheer up. All your kids will live in Elysium.

Well, you can pretend.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Thank the billion-dollar climate denier fund. nt

[flvegan]

18. Stop eating factory farmed meat, or at least much less of it.

Yeah, yeah, I'll hear from the "I only eat beef from the finest grazing cattle who poop unicorns" soon enough. Okay, if you must eat meat, don't eat less of that. Eat less of the other crap.

You don't have to go vegan tomorrow, but eating LESS is something that every single person can do starting right now.

I know, bacon tastes good. If you don't care, then you don't care. I get that you can't get over yourself. No biggie for you.

[villager]

28. +1

The shoveling in of industrially-produced meat is another aspect of denial...

[JaneyVee]

27. What if the Earth is WAY more fragile than we even realize?

In only the last 100 years we've polluted the earth more than the previous 13.9 Billion years of its existence combined.

[AverageJoe90]

36. I doubt that.

If that was really true, then life on this planet *would* have ceased a long time ago. We wouldn't be here. In fact, I'd place my bets on life being more durable & adaptable than we currently understand, if anything, at least in the long term.

With that said, though, I'm not willing to gamble, especially on the off chance that something truly fucked *does* happen.

[RobertEarl]

45. Lets see if I have you right

Climate change will happen but everything will be just fine.

Have you seen the number of species that are well known to be in catastrophic decline in just the last 100 years?

[AverageJoe90]

47. "Lets see if I have you right". Nope.

Climate change will happen, is happening, and there will continue to be problems. But in all likelihood it wouldn't quite as bad as climate doomers are making it out to be, and that there *are* solutions & there IS reason to believe that we will bring it under at least some control in the future.

[RobertEarl]

49. What are your solutions?

You do know that the co2 we put in the air today will be warming the planet for up to 50 years?

Which means that the co2 we put in the air 50 years ago is what is warming us now.

What are your solutions, Joe?

[JaneyVee]

61. Doubt what? Industrial pollutants, oil spills, & mass pollution never existed

Before 100 years ago.

[cpwm17]

62. Major climate changes in the past have been accompanied by mass extinctions

The surviving forms of life continued to evolve and fill the new environments. We're not going to extinguish all life on earth, but we can make the earth very difficult for the life forms that exist now.

[AverageJoe90]

84. "but we can make the earth very difficult for the life forms that exist now."

Well, I can't(and won't!) argue with that, TBH, as the evidence that we have suggests that is indeed going to happen for at least some forms of life.

[joshcryer]

83. 95% of life has been extinguished in the past.

[AverageJoe90]

85. Not quite 95%, TBH.

It is indeed true that ~90% of aquatic life and about two-thirds of terrestrial life did indeed get wiped out in the Permian extinction. 95% overall is a bit of an exaggeration, though, to be truthful. It was more like around 75-80%. Of course, it may not do us much good to squabble over the differences, what some might call hair-splitting, as it were, but I just thought I might point that out.

[joshcryer]

86. 95% is the upper case estimate.

The point being that life has a hard go of it. The Universe is not a kind place.

You can pretend we have exact numbers for extinction events hundreds of millions of years ago but the estimates are wide ranging. Sepkoski's numbers are hardly the final say. It took 50 some million years for life biodiversity to recover.

[tclambert]

66. The Earth isn't that fragile. Human civilization, though . . .

The planet will keep whirling around the Sun even if humans go extinct. Unless we go full run-away greenhouse like Venus, life will probably survive, too.

Drown the coastal cities and the low-lying countries, change the farmlands to deserts and the deserts to rain forests, deprive vast areas of reliable supplies of freshwater from snow melt, and we may see the global economic system break down. Yes, that's right. It may ultimately affect investment bankers, who you thought were immune to everything.

[mdbl]

82. The earth isn't fragile, humans are, they just don't remember it enough

The earth will take care of itself. We can do what we like with it now, but it will not tolerate us forever. We will be extinct and some other more adaptive form of life will prevail.

[raouldukelives]

64. Luckily the climate change deniers can depend on donations from corporations

Lovingly provided by Wall St investors who would rather help them continue decimating the planet in return for a few bucks than use their time on earth to make things better for all lifeforms.
You can try to explain empathy towards the poor, wildlife and mother nature, but unless it pays well, nobody cares to listen, let alone consider trying to be part of the solution.

[adirondacker]

71. Private, for profit, environmental consulting firms are the new rage. Slave labor for science majors

but they save the state and federal governments money. They can scapegoat any discrepancies in data (that they fix for the multinationals) by blaming the new intern. Accountability? pfft.

They're always a step ahead.

[blkmusclmachine]

67. God's in the mix.

[hunter]

95. Clearly God loves us.

We are very tasty and self-cooking.

The bacon in the stew!

[Dorian Gray]

88. It certainly feels that way.

[AverageJoe90]

94. I can't blame you, honestly, but things are a LOT more complex than that.....

which our resident Chicken Little doomers(no, I won't name names, but many probably know who they are by now, mostly) consistently seem to forget(or perhaps conveniently omit in a few less scrupulous cases).

Yes, we do know that Arctic ice has ended up melting quite a bit faster than we'd anticipated, and reliable sea level estimates have been going up as well. That *is* true. But many other things, including average estimates of climate sensitivity(though this is mainly due to elimination of both pessimistic & optimistic extremes: 2100 values used to range from 1 to 6*C a doubling just a decade ago. Now, 2-3*C appears to be the most accurate value, and is certainly no higher than 4*C at this point.), etc., have actually been either staying roughly the same, or even going down noticeably in a few cases.