climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[palmbeacher]

Homo Sapiens for example is an extremely adaptable species. Adaptable enough to fix this mess.

Sure, it’s just that the poorest with the lowest footprints will suffer the most. And however well we adapt, we can’t bring back species once extinct.

[jumptheshark]

As for polar bears. Why are they more important than dinosaurs? It's not like species haven't gone extinct without us. Not to mention we will make a lot more speces go extinct regardless of how much co2 we emit. If that is your core concern I mean.

Your indifference to the polar bear is telling. Especially the tacit acceptance of responsibility.

My core concern is for all species.

[Havre]

Couldn't you say the same about the other side of this argument? If you are to prove that this isn't natural why shouldn't you be able to prove the opposite?

I have no doubt that humans influence the environement. Of course we do. For me it is a matter of degree and cost vs benefit. For me that part of the debate is definitely still open.

The next would be in the case one thinks the degree is too severe what to do with it. I still can't get my head around why not all "belivers" are pro nuclear and population control. Paris agreement would be a walk in the park.

[Havre]

As for polar bears. Why are they more important than dinosaurs? It's not like species haven't gone extinct without us. Not to mention we will make a lot more speces go extinct regardless of how much co2 we emit. If that is your core concern I mean.

Your indifference to the polar bear is telling. Especially the tacit acceptance of responsibility.

My core concern is for all species.

You didn't get my point. There is no evolutionary logic in humans controlling what happens. And if you truly care about polar beers (and species in general) you are a fool to think co2 emissions should be your area of focus.

[Greenturtle]

Homo Sapiens for example is an extremely adaptable species. Adaptable enough to fix this mess.

Sure, it’s just that the poorest with the lowest footprints will suffer the most. And however well we adapt, we can’t bring back species once extinct.

My point was we are more than adaptable enough to make the necessary changes in where our energy comes from.

[palmbeacher]

Homo Sapiens for example is an extremely adaptable species. Adaptable enough to fix this mess.

Sure, it’s just that the poorest with the lowest footprints will suffer the most. And however well we adapt, we can’t bring back species once extinct.

My point was we are more than adaptable enough to make the necessary changes in where our energy comes from.

Ok, I thought you referred to climate adaptation. On the climate mitigation front:
- Civilization today runs on 84% fossil energy
- To meet 1.5°C goal (...), emissions must halve by 2030, net-out by 2050

Not so much a technological, but more a political challenge...

[jumptheshark]

And if you truly care about polar beers (and species in general) you are a fool to think co2 emissions should be your area of focus.

My concerns run a little broader than simply pinning everything on C02.

We spill oil

We poison rivers

We burn everything

We need a course correction

[tegirinenashi]

...And however well we adapt, we can’t bring back species once extinct.

I wouldn't be so sure. There is an effort to bring back some extinct species using genetic engineering. There is a question, of course, who decides what is worth saving.

But make no mistake, if you piss off the good money onto some politically correct but otherwise worthless goals, you'll have less those exciting development.

[Greenturtle]

...And however well we adapt, we can’t bring back species once extinct.

I wouldn't be so sure. There is an effort to bring back some extinct species using genetic engineering. There is a question, of course, who decides what is worth saving.

But make no mistake, if you piss off the good money onto some politically correct but otherwise worthless goals, you'll have less those exciting development.

Whats the point of bringing back a species that the environment cannot support? To put it in a zoo and see if it can be coaxed into feeding with the clumsy help of a puppet-parent? Maybe breed someday with...the other ones brought back in the lab? Pffft.
The money is better spent keeping them alive by protecting their native environment in the first place. Less exciting?

[SimonP]

Sure 0.01 degree per year might be unprecedented from paleoclimatic perspective. It is still puny compared to seasonable variation. A suggestion that biological organisms are so inept to adapt or even notice this "change" is just laughable.

Seasonable variation is laughable, but climate change is not. Here are some examples.
1. German forests severely affected by drought , fir, and beetle damage.
2. Rising ocean temperatures killing the northern Great Barrier Reef.
3. Mountain pine beetle crossing the Cascades in warmer years and decimating ill-adapted central Canadian forest.
Coral reefs and trees can not easily move, small changes in average temperature increase extreme event probability which have cascading effects.