What Environmental Reporting Leaves Out

[AverageJoe90]

26. For fuck's sake.

As I've explained many times before, my main beef is with those people who keep pushing certain lines of bullshit, like the "there's nothing we can do" line, or "Earth will turn into Venus", etc. that are in fact, counter-productive.

The above paragraph is a bold statement, but let us look at some of the deductions from the 2007 report.

-- That effects of warming above 2*C would lead to serious changes in the climate. We are at .8*C now and everyday there are articles and studies indicating the effects of climate are much ahead of schedule in time, and at lower concentrations of CO2, thought to be workable threshold.

-- The Arctic sea ice will disappear sometime near 2100 if cuts in CO2 production are not addressed soon. Just five years past the report, this conservative deduction has been jettisoned for the optimistic views the ice will remain to about 2030, with many scientists now saying within this decade. About 70 - 80 years before projections.

-- Damaging ocean acidification is happening sooner and at lower atmospheric CO2 concentration than thought in the 2007 report. Note the stories of the effects of acidity with crustaceans and corrals.

-- The warmer water temperatures are already significantly changing the Southern Ocean, threatening the krill. Without the krill a collapse of the entire fishery is certain, and many of the ecosystems this little crustacean supports. This was not even modeled or highlighted in the 2007 report.

-- Also not included in the 2007 IPCC report and models were the changes now occurring in the sequestration of CO2 in the Southern Ocean. Another feedback loop we are now facing that wasn't even listed in the report.

-- The scientific consensus in view of the continued rise in CO2 production has also changed in the last five years, with few scientists believing the 2*C threshold is possible and our future problem will be much greater than outlined in the 2007 report.

-- The methane vents in the ocean north of Siberia and the tundra as well, are far ahead of 2007 modeling, both in time and at a much lower level of CO2 concentration and global temperature rise.

Why are you bringing this up? I haven't questioned any of this. And in fact, it is indeed true that the proverbial dice rolls have been extraordinarily shitty these past 5 years or so, which is why I have continued to promote urgent action, because we don't know if and/or when we'll catch a lucky break(i.e. things go back to being more on schedule), or not.

All I implied, once again, was that those people pushing lines like "we can't do anything", "Earth is doomed(for sure)", etc. aren't providing anything valuable in terms of discourse. I did nothing of the sort of those who said that at least some things are happening earlier than originally forecast, and frankly, I'm one of them, so why would I diss a group of which I'm a part of? It makes no sense.