No, the answer is relatively simple. However, it may destroy basically our civilization. Similar to what Einstein said: "I do not know with weapons the third world war is going to be fought, but I know with which the fourth: with sticks and stones". Some of the reasons for my view on this comes from me studying climate change impacts for decades and some justifications for this were given in previous comments I prefer to not repeat and anyway, a really thorough answer would require quite some time. I am afraid I do not have it at this moment.

Perhaps unfortuantely, the answer to this quesiton is most definitively NO.

Much might happen that will hurt the human species, but climate change alone will not wipe us out. This relates both to the temporal scale and the spatial scale. Temporally, even in the worst case we have decades to prepare. Spatially, most strong impacts will be relatively local, and might be disasterous and perhaps wiping out, but not at global scale..

Note that this is not to say that disasters similar to the Potato famine will not happen. I am actually convinced that they will, with strong (global) consequences!

The impact could be diverse and could take away billions of lives globally, but I don't think it would completely wipe us out. With the technology we have, we would definitely find a solution and would survive. And then, if someday earth attain stability and return back to normal state we could pollute it again and bring back the "climate change".

No, the answer is relatively simple. However, it may destroy basically our civilization. Similar to what Einstein said: "I do not know with weapons the third world war is going to be fought, but I know with which the fourth: with sticks and stones". Some of the reasons for my view on this comes from me studying climate change impacts for decades and some justifications for this were given in previous comments I prefer to not repeat and anyway, a really thorough answer would require quite some time. I am afraid I do not have it at this moment.

Everyone saying no, where are the dinosaurs right now? Of course it can wipe us out. What will happen if Yellow Stones explodes, do you think anyone will survive the global cool down that will follow such explosion and the ensuing ice age. Humans are too self centered to survive. We will eat each other to extinction in case of climate catastrophes. Also while we have made strides technologically, we have failed in the one aspect that would save us all, that of space technology.

The changing average global temperatures show variations over decades. The rates at which temperatures are varying currently are making the researchers even more conscious, but believing that climate change alone could wipe us out entirely is not justified. It could lead to casualties at a large scale, for instance the floods caused beecause of melting snow and glaciers or small scale like in case of heat or cold waves. Climate change coupled with other factors aggravate the destruction and regarding the wipe out of dinosaurs, it is still unclear what led to their extinction. Generally two concepts are debated upon. One is the meteor theory and the other being volcanic eruptions leading to release of sulphur dioxide which caused global cooling. While climate change is mostly considered at anthropogenic levels and less because of natural features, the entire wipe out of human civilization could occur in thousands of years and not in the near future. The natural calamities or catastrophes would be sudden and they could lead to wipe out but these could not be considered as climate change.

Well I think climate change on it's own will not wipe us out, thinking of that other species already survived severe climate changes in the past. But the consequences coming along with the current climate change will be most certainly a tremendous challenge for most of the humans. Not only are the already mentioned changes a challenge for us, but what I see as a central difficulty will be the problem of migration possibilities. Looking at the tremendous number of humans now living on this planet, it won't be that easy anymore for us to migrate to other climate zones that might make a survival easier. That means that a lot of people will be "wiped out", to use the same term, is because the current lifestyle and the fact that we are so "many" of us, won't allow it. Another reason for a tremendous death rate of our species will be in my opinion the difficulty of adaption. Especially for the people living in the cities, which is the main part of the humans living nowadays, will be confronted with basic need problems, when the worldwide trade will break down because f.e. missing crops etc. Already now we see how difficult it is for the society "representing" governments to work together on new rules to stop the fast changing climate, so it also is difficult for us as one specie to adapt our agriculture, consumption, respect for other life forms etc. So I think it's certainly not climate change that when, that will wipe us out but much more the lack of survival instincts provoked by the current lifestyle of consumerism of us humans. I guess that species being in danger of extinction because of us humans, might survive the consequences coming from the current climate change.

No there is very little likelihood that climate change can wipe out the human race from the face of the planet at least in the foreseeable future. Human beings by nature have very high propensity to adapt to the changing environment no matter how intolerable they may appear to be. The climate is not changing in a unidirectional way, that is, always from bad to worse. There are other areas which may benefit from climate change. Because the moisture in the atmosphere is in balance, areas which may become deficit in rainfall could be compensated with regions which may change to have of abundant rainfall. Thus human beings can always migrate leaving harsh conditions to areas of better climate. Of course extremes my increase to add stress to human comfort but never to the extend that a human being is not able to survive.

I believe that to say that climate change could "wipe us out" is too dramatic and should be avoided because that is exactly the kind of rethoric that doesn't help the climate cause by calling scientists panic-mongers. In my opinion, the correct phraseology and information for what you are asking can be found in the Report from the World Bank of 2012 "Turn down the heat" where it affirms that: "With pressures increasing as warming progresses toward 4°C and combining with nonclimate–related social, economic, and population stresses, the risk of crossing critical social system thresholds will grow. At such thresholds existing institutions that would have supported adaptation actions would likely become much less effective or even collapse. One example is a risk that sea-level rise in atoll countries exceeds the capabilities of controlled, adaptive migration, resulting in the need for complete abandonment of an island or region. Similarly, stresses on human health, such as heat waves, malnutrition, and decreasing quality of drinking water due to seawater intrusion, have the potential to overburden health-care systems to a point where adaptation is no longer possible, and dislocation is forced. Thus, given that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts, there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible." (World Bank, 2012: XVIII)

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf

Yes it can, as it has happened over and over again in the past. We are just one of the several life forms existing on earth at present. We too depend on natural resources for survival. Any change in the climate conditions may affect us directly or indirectly through changes in the availability of the natural resources we are dependent on. However the rate or magnitude of such a devastation will depend upon a number of factors including how adaptive we are, how quickly we can relocate to comfortable locations, availability of such locations and natural barrier (to some extent), population size etc.

No. Humans are very adaptable and there will always be sizable parts of the globe with suitable living conditions. Live might not be as peaceful anymore, though. People will rather wipe out each other wherever resources (water, essentially) become scarce. So, climate change may well decimate the human population in some parts of the World and it may massively change our culture - but it won't wipe us out entirely.

I agree with Jens. What other vertebrate organism has adapted to as many habitats as we have? Climate change? The climate would have to change enough in one direction or another that it exceeded the limits of our habitat suitability index (which encompasses most climates on earth).

In contrast it is interesting to read Svante Arrhenius's optimistic words that "By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." (page 63 in 'Worlds in the Making').

But "wipe us out", as in 'exterminate'? Unlikely. Homo sapiens is not likely to go away simply as a result of climate change. We emerged in Africa and swarmed over the planet in 'nothing flat', adapting to nearly every climate that there is. 'Wiping us out' will require a lot more than a few degrees Celsius.

This response is just for fun...so how many times in the historic past, has the prediction been made that 'the world is going to end' or something along those lines? Climate change, the 'end of the world', Armageddon, the Rapture, Zombie Apocalypse? Have we predicted these things dozens of times? Hundreds? Thousands? Depends on how you count them but more than hundreds and possibly thousands of times, people have made this kind of prediction. And how many were correct?

Like I tell my students, when it comes to this kind of prediction, expressed in hypothetical terms, most of the time the 'null' hypothesis is the one we should embrace. This probably applies to this latest question about getting 'wiped out' as well. So this question probably should have been posed on 31 October, or perhaps 1 April. It's fun to put on the Halloween mask and scare each other. But sooner or later we have to admit that sometimes it isn't all that realistic.

Interestingly, this exact discussion is now hot topic because of Bob Geldof who has predicted that the world will end in 2030 because of climate change. Just a small selection out of all reactions to this announcement seems to favour the opinion that there will be no wipe out, or at least not in 2030:

"Geldof has gone out on a dilusional limb for the cause that he puts all faith in"

"dire prediction"

I would recommend to read the following publication I don´t think it would literally wipe us out but something pretty simmilar may happen: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/pdf/nature11018.pdf

Interestingly, the Irish potato famine was not caused by regional temperature fluctuations (bad weather for potatoes). It was poor agricultural management induced by social and economic dislocations (see paper below). So I would say, climate change will trigger a lot of catastrophes, but the job of wiping us out will remain ours (except for planet wide natural disasters like super vulcanoes and such like).

Article Social Vulnerability and Ecological Fragility: Building Brid...

I suggest reading Mark Lynas "Six Degrees". He is a reporter, not a scientist, but made a very good job of covering most of the main papers on climate projections and models, presenting some of the potential consequences of different levels of climate change for the planet and for our civilization. It is also a very nice read.

Personally, I don't think that climate change could lead to the extinction of the human kind, because we are very widespread and extremely abundant, making such an extinction very unlikely. However, our modern civilization is infinitely more sensible than our species as a whole, so it is very likely than climate change will have a profound negative impact on our way of life. We depend on a massive agricultural production that requires a fine tuned climatic pattern to produce maximum yields, which is probably our weakest point, while changes in sea temperature and sea currents will certainly impact the already sensitive fisheries that we are leading very close to collapse. Other effects of climate change such as sea level rise, extreme climatic events and the consequential mass migration of climate refugees could certainly also create great stress on our global civilization.

All in all, I would say that what determines our success in a changing climate will be not so much the climate itself, but the way in which we deal with these changes, as Daniel pointed out in the comment above.

I agree with Desmond, energy moves from one place to another, and so, climate components characteristics also moves from one region to anothor on the earth and its atmosphere. I think that certain arid regions may become humid, while certain humid regions may become arid lands. This may result in redstribution of the biosphere, and consequently, civilizations and urbanizations may be exchanged.

It seems to me - looking at the other planets that have no atmospheres - that if we somehow push the current stable state of our atmosphere into state of nonexistence like the other planets - then yes, it seems feasible that our continuous and increasing output of greenhouse gases could wipe us out.

No, humanity will probably survive, albeit at a great cost. I would say that civilization as we know it will certainly vanish, as have many previous civilizations due to local/regional environmental problems in the past. For example there is a growing body of evidence linking the breakdown of the Maya civilization with regional climate variability and enhanced impacts due to deforestation and subsequent water shortages. The civilizations in Mesopotamia were weakened when irrigation practices resulted in severe soil degradation and hence problems with food production. However humankind survived. Hence we would probably survive but given that this time problems are global, it is not easy to see under what new forms new civilizations may arise.

On the other hand the demise of regional civilizations have always taken place with heavy costs in life. Rebuidling new civilizations also entails much work and sacrifice. What would happen this time, how civilization(s) could recover under after a global collapse is an open question.

What an interesting question, and discussion. I think the simple answer is probably that it's unlikely, for the many considered reasons below, but that there are always limits to our knowledge, and opportunities for surprises in the system. Who knows?

These types of questions keep the field interesting.

“Wipe us out” should be defined in that it could mean the end of Homo sapiens, the end of our current social structures or societies as we know or perceive them, the end of societal advancement via science, technology, and free and progressive thought. But given that “wipe us out” is not defined, I think it is safe to say the climate change will be one of several contributing factors that will strongly effect human civilization in one way or the other, but none of them to the positive. Besides climate change, one needs to also consider other critical factors, with the most critical one being human populations growth as this one factor, if not controlled, will influence most if not all other factors that could ‘wipe us out” one way or the other. Human population expansion has rapidly and strongly influenced loose and alteration of natural habitats, development and spread of diseases, climate change, depletion of finite resources that currently are our main energy sources, and much more. And if you stay on top of the literature, you can see that all these factors are interlinked and in one way or the other influence each other to varying degrees. But above all else, I see population growth as the single most critical factor. When I was born (and we do not need to go back into the dark ages), the world population was less than 2.5 billion, and today is just over 7.1 billion. Models have come out that predict that the world population will plateau at around 10 billion, yet given all the problems we currently face with a population of 7.1 billion and all I have seen take place with respect to my various points above, I cannot help but wonder what impacts a population of 10 billion will be like on the earth and the world we live in. Also, the 10 billion estimate is based on model development, and models can have flaws in them and predictions based on models do not always pan out as predicted. So where are we headed and what factor other then population growth will have the most impact?

Great comment by David above, I couldn't agree more. I just wanted to add that the idea of a planet, some 40 or 50 years from now, with 10 billion people, global weather in havoc and the expected loss of biodiversity that should take place until then seems to be the type of grim scenario that we see in bad sci-fi movies. However, it seems likely, if not certain, that that is the way we are heading at a terribly fast pace. Unfortunately, I personally have no hope that humanity will be able to reduce this trend in any way other than minor palliative measures that wont change anything in the long run.

Let me try to put a smiley face on all this concern. As I explain to my students, and in the spirit of good ol' Arrhenius, I might just be able, someday, to grow bananas. Yum!

I agree with certain points in previous discussions that human is adaptable to change in the surrounding ecosystem due to climate change. Not only human being, but all the life forms have ability to adapt to changed conditions or may migrate to area with favourable climate. As a result, the different resources will change in quality and quantity in different parts of earth. This may result in efforts by people in unfavourable climate to wipe out people from favourable climate to occupy those areas. The natural calamity due to climate change is due to population explosion and indiscriminate development, and is according to the natural law that nature keep control over the populations and resources, to keep the natural balance on the earth. It is also likely that human will learn to adopt to new set of conditions due to climae change. Apart from this, major part of polar ice will melt and large part of inhabitated land will go under water. This will also be a reaason for creating war like situation among different civilizatoions. But human wisdom would definitely try to find soluion and try to adapt a new set of life conditions under changfed climatic and ecological conditions.

Pramod has touched upon a key point that I have been giving considerable thought to for years. While my research interests lie in the areas of behavior, life histories, and biogeography of fish, herptiles and some crustaceans; I also have a strong interest in human personalities and their impact on human behavior, society and various outcomes such as climate change. While I left this point out of my first comment, I think it is well worth considering and exploring. Many articles that are published on climate change and its impact on human populations address what we need to do to change (reverse, slow down, etc.) the impacts of climate change with respect to geophysical and anthropogenic processes that influence climate change. However, as I see it, an overriding factor is the human psyche. Personalities are exceptionally complex and are controlled in part by the structure of our nervous systems, uncontrolled influences (disease, toxins, injuries, sociological events, etc.) upon an individual, and learning as well as evolutionary forces that shape our genetic structure. Also these factors have the potential to influence how we as humans might attempt to tackle the problem of climate change as well as many other problems affecting the world we live in and society in general.

Given that, one must ask the questions, can society come together to solve the problem of climate change, and has our past evolutionary history set us up so as to preclude this? Social systems are extremely complex and this complexity in part has allowed Homo sapiens to come to dominate Earth, but the same complexity could also bring us down. No single society has been responsible for our rise to the top of the biological pyramid, and I question whether or not we, as a multitude of societies, can come together to solve what is a worldwide problem. Looking back at human history, one finds that individual societies through time have risen and fallen from power, but in virtually every case, the society in question has been led by a strong and dominate individual or tightly knit group of individuals who lead, control or dominate a larger group of individuals that willingly follow those in a position of leadership or fall in line so as to avoid the ramifications of what those at the top may mediate upon them. In the past, say 10,000 to 3+ million years (Home erectus to Homo sapiens), such leadership would have allowed a social group of say 20 to 100 individuals to become organized and successful as it dealt with various issues involving survival of the group or primitive society, thus insuring the survival of the individuals that made up the primitive society. This is a common process that has helped many social species to survive and prosper such as wolves, bison, lions, etc. But now social groups are much larger and we are no longer just pursing resources that insure our survival, but also resources that can expand out wealth and holdings well beyond what we actually need. You see the individuals at the top of corporations, in governmental positions and leaders of various political and social entities engaging in serious detrimental behavior and activities that harm others while benefiting themselves and perhaps their closest allies. Much of the past recession, which various countries and even areas of the U.S. are still coming out of, was brought on by such self-centered behaviors.

Given this pattern, I ask, can a world with a continually expanding population with multiple societies governed by a plethora of leaders come together and truly do what is necessary to offset climate change and world over population? In some ways, it is the plethora of leaders that worries me the most. Obviously, many step into office or take a leadership role with the intent to lead society and do it for the benefit of those they are leading. However, there is what psychologist call the terrible trio, which refers to three personality types: narcissist, Machiavellians and psychopaths. While there are varying degrees of each personality type, if those at the far ends of the continua that make up these traits should gain power over a society, what might they do? Those at the far end of the continua often engage in actions to their own benefit and at the expense of those that they should be leading or governing. Add in the fact that much of society chooses not to take a leadership role, you then find a sizable group of people that will engage in activities that are to the determinant of others if not the world at large. Examples of this can be seen in the numerous wars and conflicts that have occurred throughout the history of the human race. While only a few choose to lead, many fall in line with those leading and engage in activities that are detrimental to others and even themselves. So the problem of climate change and the influence of world population is only getting more complex.

Global warming is inevitable. However, the term Global Warming is misleading. The temperature changes actually occur mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. The glacial periods significantly impact the Northern Hemisphere where equatorial zones and the Southern Hemisphere are influenced less. The question of Global Warming needs to be placed in context or referenced points included in the discussion. Warming starting when, 10,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago or 200 years ago? It appears, in my humble opinion, the Global Warming is following the Eemian period both in temperature and CO2 levels. If this is in fact the case, we know what will happen and can prepare accordingly, Two-thirds of the earth surface is water and a huge opportunity for food production. Since, the mean temperature of that water is 5C we need to consider more psychrophiles in our food production systems. The amount of agriculture land on earth is relatively small compared to the potential of the entire oceans. When we consider water depth deeper than the Benthic Zone immediate possibilities begin to open for pshchropiles. The recycling of human wasted into usable foods for aquaculture, minus pathogens, is limited only by our imagination.

10,000 years ago we began the transition on land from hunter/gathers to farmers. During the last 50 years we have shifted from being hunter/gathers of the oceans to fish farmers. How we utilize the oceans for food and energy (tidal, wind, biomass) will determine our success in surviving the next 6,000 years until the return of the glacial period.

Jon Cloud

As I read through the thread of discussion, I am surprised to see so passive a position. If we whine and complain about the "potential prolbem"; we solve nothing. I would prefer to see the prodigious intellect being applied to this thread turn its attention to galvanizing "potential solutions". Humans are great thinkers and problem solvers. Let's get her done.

@Cloud Jon: I think, none of the commentators responding to the question of this thread ("Could climate change wipe us out?") did so in order to "whine and complain". Rather, you can read here more or less precise answers to this precise question. If you would like to get our answers on how to respond to the problem of climate change, perhaps you might want to place this question in a new thread? Dead easy!

Some comments on your previous post:

"Global Warming is following the Eemian period both in temperature and CO2 levels." - We have already exceeded the CO2 levels of the Eemian period and the current rate of warming is faster than during the transition from the penultimate glacial into the Eemian (Termination II) or the early Holocene warming (Termination I).

By and large, Earth's climate is controlled by orbital parameters (Milankovic cycles determined by eccentricity, obliquity, precession of the Earth's orbit) according to which we should be entering a colder period about ... now. In fact, there is a general cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere throughout the Holocene, with a more substantial shift towards cooler temperatures known as the 'neoglaciation' around 4,000 years, ago (depending on the palaeoclimatic archive). The Holocene cooling trend follows the decrease in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation. It reversed only recently, i.e. after global industrialisation, due to anthropogenic CO2 injections to the atmosphere. This is basically a reverse against the expected, "natural" trend. (Remember the scientists in the 70's warning of an approaching ice age? That was when they had realised the close relation between Earth's climate and orbital parameters. Today, we know of a few more factors, anthropogenic CO2, for example.)

"... consider water depth deeper than the Benthic Zone..." - ?? That's the sediment/sea floor.

That's a nice summary Jens. Thanks. I remember well those concerns about another 'little ice age' back in the 1960s as well. Do you think, perhaps, that climate science kicked into high gear during the work on 'nuclear winter', the aftermath of global nuclear war? I'd be interested in hearing opinions on that.

Jens

Most of your point, like mine, are still being debated. The intention of my submission is not to rehash the debate but rather focus on solutions to the global warming issue. I see little here that indicates much thought in solutions. The old management axiom fits. "Bring me solutions not problems." may fit. Preaching to the choir may not exact the solutions.

Benthic zone has and continues to bring us cyanobacteria and algea (petroleum).through sedimentation. What is going on there that we do not understand? Simple pressure through sediment build up? Microbes capable of existing during ice age or global desert? What do you think Jens? Possible research topics worth exploring at psychrophile and high pressure conditions. The thread discusses 10 billion population cap. The number was thrown around by the UN more than 30 years ago. Let's just start with the simplest places for food production the Mesopelagic and Bathypelagic Zones. I leave the Benthic question to the next two generations. I, like T. Boone Pickens, am looking for shorter term solutions to feed the world. Want to help?

Jon

@Cloud Jon

The paleoclimatic development that I've summarised in my earlier post is not "debated", at all. It is, in fact, well-documented in countless palaeoclimate records, from marine and lacustrine sediment records to ice cores and peat profiles.

Apart from that, be reassured that quite a substantial number of scientists is working on solutions with regard to the adaption to climate change as well as feeding an increasing population. However, and I'm repeating myself, this is not the topic of this thread.

I'm still puzzled by your remarks on the "benthic zone". Petroleum is not produced in the benthic zone. And what exactly is it that we have missed, in your opinion, on the issue of petroleum formation? As far as I'm aware this is a very well understood process (plenty of literature for you to search on the web).

Finally, when it comes to the microbes, of course there is microbes living on our planet under all kinds of extreme conditions. Perhaps you might also want to google "deep biosphere".

Kenneth,

I understand algae well as it is what I work with full time. The process and potential to understand more is what I seek to garner from this august body. Perhaps, you can enlighten this poor student of life and tell me what you are working on that will bring solutions for feeding the masses. I hope you are not advocating legislating sterility, breeding by the select few, limiting family size (China's failed experiment).

I see a lot of good input here, and actually favor the raising of questions and concerns prior to actual actions being taken—which will require years if not decades to implement. Why high levels of input prior to taking actions? There is value in this approach in that so many aspects of global warming/climate change can and do interact with each other that I think it is imperative to try and look at all or as many of the various factors first as is possible. There are also many other questions and concerns that have not yet been raised that I wonder at times if we need a forum of knowledgeable individuals that are well educated and focused on looking for what is the reality of the various points and how they can be solved. Such a group(s) is/are essential if we are to pursue meaningful pathways to solving the various problems that have or will be identified. Perhaps several such forums simultaneously looking at the various aspects of the problem followed by meta-analyses or comparative analyses needs to be carried out. Granted, various world and national organizations have looked at climate change and global warming, but the end result of such meetings and conferences have been largely nonproductive from my view in that the members of the various organizations involved have worked against each other in order to preserve their own personal/national interests or taken a neutral position so as to avoid conflict and discourse.

When I think of climate change, a hoard of ideas and issues comes to mind, and I see them all interlinked. My mind also ranks the various impacting factors. I even dream about this and wake up at night thinking about them, but this is then interrupted by Madison, the mutt, who realizing I am awake, wants to be scratched behind the ear. If not her then Adelaide the other nut mutt comes over to the bed. But getting to the interweaving and complexity of climate change, here are some thoughts and comments that I give considerable thought to whether in my sleep or when awake.

1. It is not appropriate to just look at climate change or world population as the key issue or issues, but rather we must start looking at the interlinking of many issues as to focus on just one or a few points will fail to lead us in the right directions. Points not fully or properly addressed could prove to be very problematic.

2. Major issues I feel that need to be addressed and which I see as strongly interlinked include the following, and the list need to be expanded—

a. World population—where is it going and what are the consequences as it expands? Can it cause all else to implode?

b. Climate change—what are the geophysical implications of this process. Rising sea levels are one, and we can look at coastlines, coastal population centers, etc. and get a good idea of what higher sea levels will do along the coast, but what about impacts further inland. What can we predict or model what will occur inland, and how reliable will the models be? Will deserts expand in some regions? Will rainfall increase dramatically in some areas causing existing rivers to expand, change course, and inundate critical habitats, rural and urban areas? In other words, will the rivers do inland what the oceans will do on the coasts. It is not just the coastal areas that could be strongly impacted. Much can happen inland and we are naive to only look at coastal sea level rise.

c. Natural and artificial ecosystems maintenance--By this I mean maintaining very large parts of the world so they are functional for both the survival of the ecosystems we consider natural and the artificial manmade ecosystems. As to the latter of the two ecosystems, as populations expand, we will need to devote or modify more and more of the natural systems to support the latter. Human ecosystems are artificial, if I may use such a term, and are dependent on natural systems so as to persist. Natural ecosystems tend to recycle critical resources, rebuild themselves or transform gradually into different ecosystems, which promotes long-term survival of various systems. However, mankind has produced a wide variety of artificial ecosystems (urban and suburban areas large and small, extensive agricultural areas, areas highly modified such as strip mines, highways, dammed and altered river basins, etc.) that either rob natural systems of the resources needed for them to continue or which we modify to the point of total destruction. Where is this going, and what must we do? And world population growth is a key inter-linkage here.

d. Individual resource maintenance. An example here is soil. The cultivation of crops often depletes soils of critical nutrients that we need to resupply via artificial processes involving the spreading of fertilizers and other nutrients. One such nutrient is phosphate, but extensive phosphate deposits are limited and once deposited on agricultural fields it is lost and not readily recaptured for reuse. Where will future phosphate deposits come from. In addition to this, natural soils are ecosystems unto themselves and as such the sites of extensive microbial, invertebrate and vertebrate communities. As we expand our agricultural fields producing artificial systems, will we induce the collapse of critical natural systems, and what will be the impact? The same is likely true for aquaculture systems in which large areas of the seas and oceans are modified to produce mono harvests of specific organisms such as species of fish, mussels, crabs, etc. Such systems will reduce the number of natural systems and force us to extract from the natural systems resources that are critical to them.

e. Diseases. I have alluded to human evolution and its influence on the human psyche. Evolutionary processes are in part a function of population size and reproduction rates. Small populations with slow reproduction rates show gradual changes in genetic structure and flexibility with respect to adaptation. Large rapidly reproducing populations show rapid change and adaptation. Given this, where will various diseases go in the future, and can we control them and deal with them successfully. An infected individual can house as many viral particles as there are individuals in the world. Now add in livestock and crops of plants and rapid rates of multiplication or reproduction and what do you get? You get mutations that can allow virus, bacteria or fungus the opportunity to out maneuver out medical systems.

f. As a mentioned before, I see the human psyche as a critical factor. We are programmed in some ways to work together and to take care of others. You see this all the time in the form of various foundations and organizations that reach out to those that are in need, and in families that care for their own and each other. But at the same time, the human psyche is also competitive such that we take care of ourselves and those closest to us at the expense of others. Add in the wide range of personality types and how they work with and against each other, and I cannot help but ask the question, what must we do or what must happen so that we start working together to solve worldwide problems that could bring on a collapse of civilizations across the world?

I have raised only a few examples or points above, but what is key to all of them is their inter-linkage. We can, through research, modeling and analyses, learn and discover how this inter-linkage will impact the Earth. But in a sense all these points are working against the other points one way or another and as I see it, the biggest influence is Home sapiens. Can we now come together as a species and work as one or will human populations need to collapse so that the few left can come together as one. I hate to be so negative, but this is where my dreams take me and waking up and petting the dogs does not change my perspective. However, it does make the mutts happy and they wag their tails, while growling at each other to see who gets petted the most. It’s all about resources.

" Perhaps several such forums simultaneously looking at the various aspects of the problem followed by meta-analyses or comparative analyses needs to be carried out."

I'm sure the IPCC folks agree, lol. I think Kenneth Towe has a realistic view of this subject. Some committee may wishfully suggest a goal of, say, 450ppm CO2 as a maximum... and that would be nice but as the paper by Newell and Marcus implies, the goal may be both unlikely and unrealistic. I'm reminded of the energy 'independence' goals that every president since Nixon has charmed the American people with...every one a failure.

Cloud Jon asks how 10 billion people can be fed? I suggest that Paul Ehrlich was asking something similar when he predicted dire consequences of population growth that would occur around 1984 - and we know how that prediction turned out.

But the better response to Cloud Jon would be to ask if he thinks that at a little over 7 billion people today, does he think we are feeding everyone now? My opinion is that, no, we are not currently feeding everyone, at least not to the extent that proper nutrition would suggest. So my answer to his question is (again keeping in mind the pragmatism of Kenneth Towe) that we will not feed all 10 billion people properly and there are likely to be some, perhaps many, people who will be hungry. That seems to be the situation as it is now. There's no reason to think it will improve in the future. I also suggest that we reflect on these things as we stuff ourselves in a grand exhibit of conspicuous consumption over these winter holidays. Bon Appétit!

Hi John,

Great research coming out of Clemson. Great school.

To address your question regarding feeding 10 billion people, I divide the question into two parts. The first part rests with the ability to feed 10 billion people. The answer is clearly yes we can feed that many people. We have the technology,capital and the people to provide the food. It is the second part of the question that causes the problem, distribution. The distribution system, carbon intensive, simply does not provide sufficient food to many parts of the world. Emphasis on local food production has not been historical sufficient.

The paradigm shift occurring in aquaculture, hunter/gather to water farmer, has huge potential. It requires nutrient recycling (P and K in specific) for long term success. The amount of P being flushed down the toilet each morning, assuming you are a morning person, within the first world countries is staggering. The bio-solids are precipitated out of the effluence using hydrated potassium aluminum sulfate, Once deposited, it is collected and shipped to the land fill. Bad move. The production of bio-gas from the effluent will assist the US in energy self-sufficiency but there still remains the question of the unused liquor, loaded with nutrients as well as containing heavy metals and pharmaceuticals. The problems are not insurmountable. The location of much of the world population is on the edges of the oceans and large lakes. I seems logical, prudent and efficient to begin to provide local food production in these waters. The effluent discharged is stopped, valuable nutrient resources recycled and food produced in a bio-region. Certainly the increased utilization of the Epipelagic Zone would be a good place to start. The Mesopelagic Zone all the way down to Benthic, will require some thinking and work. We can perform Hyperspectral Cytometry and we why can't solve the problem of feeding 10 Billion people. Bull.

The Pirsig's Trap forum thread address many of the problems facing attitudes and how attitudes shifts occur. Since the technology, capital and human power is present to feed 10 billion, 17 billion or 25 billion people; then what is preventing it.? We are limited only by what we think we can't achieve.

As a side note: Some Canadian are cheering for Global Warming and looking forward to the day trees are again growing on the south shore of our beloved Baffin Island. (That is a joke Kenneth).

Jon

I'd like to put forward my views in a small way on this subject...

Some of us seem to travel a lot from place to place, experiencing what is the local climate of the region... When we first reach a place, we take some time to adjust to the heat or cold, but in a few days we don't feel so warm or cold anymore...

Acclimatization forms part of our survival instinct which also leads to the survival of the fittest...

Now coming to global climate change, the time scales we encounter here are far greater than the ones we experience during our journeys... If the rate of change were to remain as it is at present, and provided people stay where they are and don't migrate because of the change, we would finally be adapted to such an extent that we would form new strains of the human species separated across climatic boundaries...

Therefore, overall, there seems to be no reason for this or any other species to be completely wiped out if we just continue with the age-old tradition of adaptation...

Cheers!

Dominique.

Dominique, it is not the issue of adaptation through acclimatising to two or three degrees change in temperature that is going to be the worst and most dangerous impact of climate change, for us or any other species. It is the unpredictable, the massive storm, the typhoon, the five days of super-heat, the flooding that will be most dangerous. Already farmers in parts of Africa are experiencing this: their crops manage alright, even though temps are higher, until a heatwave comes along, with temperatures in the upper 30s and even 40s, and the seedlings die. They plant again, do alright, then a massive storm bursts and floods the young seedlings out.

Similarly humans might be able to adjust to regular temps that are above a previous norm, but (as we saw in 2003) when the temps leap by huge amounts, the vulnerable die.

Humans will not die out, of course, but sustaining our current levels of industrialisation in the teeth of such unpredictability, affecting the availability of water, food and energy, could prove very difficult.

@ Mandi,

By adaptation, I did not merely mean a change in our bodies to adjust to the changing temperatures, but changes more in everything that pertains our living.

For example, as with the farmers that you mentioned, a possible change in livelihood would be required of us in order to remain at pace with the changing environment around us.

Natural calamities that are sudden and unexpected won't just take their toll in the future - they do so even now. For instance, when the tsunami hit in 2004, many lives were lost, but we learnt from then, and now we have established tsunami warning centers posted in many sensitive locations around the world. Similarly, with floods and typhoons, there will eventually be a solution to tackle these problems to whatever extent we can (as human beings) still at the mercy of nature.

There are also periods of intense and normal that follow each other like a wave. If we wade through the intense period by developing means to survive, we can surely repopulate the earth when the normal time resumes...

While "adaptation theory" may be advanced in favour of our survival under the impending climate change, we the humans (Homo sapience, the wise man) can not afford to take for granted our survival on this planet for ever.

Every species needs conducive environment and adequate food supply for their survival and perpetuation, lack of which has made many species extinct in the past. Climate change, if continues uncontrolled in long term, might severely affect the both food supply and environmental suitability. it would be therefore prudent not to overestimate our manipulative/adaptive ability, and not to underestimate the potentially disastrous impact of climate change in future.

By the way, I'd like to remind here that climate change is one of the "planetary boundaries" that must not be transgressed if we have to avoid its devastating impact on human life. Of course the "wiping out" possibility of climate change sounds too pessimistic, but we never know the scheme of nature. If we keep alienating ourselves from nature the way we are doing now, the nature may take its own course. And the survival of humanity may also be endangered.

All the arguments apart, we must recognise the potential threats posed by climate change, and act towards its mitigation with an utmost sense of urgency. This is what should be expected from the Homo sapience "THE WISE MAN".

LONG LIVE HUMANITY!

Good question SRM, and many interesting posts by previous contributors. Thanks to all.

Regards

It is interesting to see the consideration regarding climate change. The change seems to be the exclusive territory of increasing temperature. But yet, the glacial periods occupy far more time than the interglacial periods. When we consider changing climate we need to consider both directions of temperature. The blame for the changing climate, be it the Milankovitch Cycle, along with potentially compounding contributory factors, the development of agriculture (cutting of the forest) and industrialization, perhaps should occupy less of our time and thoughts. The consequence, fluctuating global temperature, is the same and the debate of human contribution to temperature changes is of little relevance in the coming 2.6 million years. What is of major relevance is the ability to supply food and recycle limited global nutrient resources. Food production on available tillable land is very limited. The production of food in the ocean, with its relatively stable temperatures, mean temperature of 5 C, compared to land/air temperatures, is an area worth researching and focusing on. The rapid increase or decrease of land temperatures would have catastrophic ramifications of food production. Global ocean currents tend to equalize the temperature of the oceans giving us a more stable platform for research and food and fuel production methods. Solar energy accumulated on non productive land can be transformed to light and channeled, to the oceans. The additional light would expand the Epipelagic Zone deeper into the Mesopelagic Zone to increase plankton, and higher food chain specie, production.

Myopic temperature considerations reduces flexibility of humans. The land, limited by fertility, temperature, water, etc. has never had the ability to support the populations capable of being supported by the remaining 69% of the Earth's surface. When combined with the depth of the Mesopelagic Zone (3,300 ft) the potential of production with the increase of light, is well beyond the 50 billion humans. Combine this with farming psychrophilc species capable of prosperous production at 5 C and we can expand beyond the the Mesopelagic Zone

Einstein said, "if at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."

Jon

@ Dominique: We can only adapt so much. The farmers, for instance, may, as you suggest, adapt by changing their livelihood to, say making pots or building houses. The hard cold fact remains that food is not being grown. So the people move away or die. The farmer-turned-builder has now lost his market once more.

Yes, we've learnt some things from the tsunami and other storm experiences. Advance warning will enable us to run away before the next Superstorm Sandy hits. But how does business in New York function when the inhabitants have to run two or three times a season? How do we cope with the aftermath being repeated, over and over?

Our lives are dependent on the Goldilocks factor: humans evolved in an earth that was 'just right', and it is the 'just right' earth that has enabled us to industrialise and hence have the lives those in the global north and parts of the global south

currently live, the communications, the health care, the accessible food (in much of the developed world), the toys and games and all... the species won't die, but I believe that we risk a steady slide backwards into a world that existed hundreds of years ago - instead of adapting to have our cake and eat it.

I suggest all to take part of the official statistics here: http://www.gapminder.org/

Most things are getting better on the planet! Why do many so called enlightened academics think otherwise and seem to thrive in doomsday stories? Is it a human need, fostered by religion? We will be around for a looooong time (unless the Wraith eat us all).

No. There won’t be a very rapid rise of temperature due to climate change that will cause mass mortality at one time! In recent time some deaths have occurred due to extreme weather events (e.g. European heat wave 2003) but these deaths were mostly related to heat stroke and heat exhaustion and limited to older people. For example, epidemiological studies conducted in Europe found a correlation between heat waves and mortality with older people (aged over 75). These older people have diminished their physiological capacity for thermoregulation. In addition, the rise of temperature will cause an impact on food production, in particular at low latitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. However adaptive responses such as use of heat/drought tolerant crops and fish, breeding crops resistant to climate change and adjustment in cropping calendars would reduce such impacts on food and thus on human health. Moreover, the rise of temperature will open a new door for farming (food production) in new areas (Canada, Russia) where previously it was not possible to grow crops such as at high latitudes.

Golam,

Your statement, "Moreover, the rise of temperature will open a new door for farming (food production) in new areas (Canada, Russia) where previously it was not possible to grow crops such as at high latitudes." is not considerate of soil availability. Simply, taking temperature into account and moving the isobars north to indicate where crops can be grown does not take may other factors regarding soil and rain patterns. As an example, in Ontario, Canada the present agriculture production areas actually corresponds rather nicely with the termination of the Canadian Shield. The "Shield" is massive ancient ledge outcroppings covering vast areas of Ontario. This region may be able to be home to a vegetable garden but not thousands of acres of tillable soil. Tile drainage, natural soil fertility, pH (influenced by forest composition, calcium deposits, etc.) soil depth and agricultural infrastructure all impact the real world ability to produce crops. An easy move north with the climate warming is the expansion of pasture (approximately 26%$ of the present land surface) land. However, preceding the advance of pastured area would be the expansion of the forests. The height of the Eemian Era contained trees growing on the south shore of our beloved Baffin Island.

The replacement of highly productive farmland in the central belly of the North American continent will not easily be replaced as they move to drier environments. Simply warming will not do yield the results you indicate.

Cloud, I do agree with you that apart from temperature there are other variables need to be considered. Of course there need to be an assessment about the suitability of land for growing of crops. However, growing of pastures in the expanded areas without destroying forests would be an option. Furthermore rise of temperature would facilitate extending growing seasons in temperate and cold areas as well. Also temperate fish as food (aquaculture) can be grown for an extended season and overwintering stress could be reduced in temperate fish.

I have little reservation about regional adaptation theory. This will create regional harmonically problems.

A typical example in our northern region of Sri Lanka this regional adaptation theory prevents taking drinking water from one place to other place.

A question was posted by me in RG and discussion is gearing you may also join the discussion through my profile page

The below article will also useful in this discussion

Article Management Policy of Water Table in Dry Zone of Sri Lanka to...

One more quote: "There is a specific feature of modern climate: its instability  is increasing faster than the Global warming. We cannot predict now a new state of global climate after stabilization of the Ocean." (A. Byalko, 2009)

Just finished an interesting book, The House of Rain, where a writer followed on foot the route of the Anasazi Indians as they abandoned their pueblos from Colorado to Mexico during the long term drought. in the AD 13th century in the Southwest USA.  

Since we are mostly farming-dependent  humans now, and not hunter-gatherers, a mathematical equation or computer model  might be possible to create, to calculate the odds for a particular group of people with a certain population to survive in the long-term in a particular area. 

When you read House of Rain, you see how climate change can sweep away a civilization that existed for a thousand years, so maybe we should start inventing methods to be able to calculate our own odds in the lands that we each live in.  And that computer model may also give us clues on what we can each change to make our odds better for the future?

 @Kenneth, I agree with the quotation from A. Byalko that you mentioned. As plant pathologist and bacteriologist I see more danger from unpredictable so far development of new plant, animal, and human pathogens, caused by global climate changes, and especially, its local instability.

I think a definition of "wipe us out" for this question needs to be discussed.  I think we will see permanent spatial extinction of humans in arid areas first, like what happened to the Indus Valley Civilization between 3000-1500 BC or what happened to the Anasazi in the SW USA in the 13th century AD.  I am concerned that central and western India, Australia and California could be next on the climate change agenda to make parts of those areas uninhabitable.

So in terms of "wiping out" there are direct deaths from droughts, or climate change just making the area uninhabitable so everyone survives, but must move to an area that still gets rainfall? So climate change can either directly wipe us out or wipe out the ability for humans to live in a particular place?

All three places are on the edges of deserts, and also at the edges of normally sketchy annual rainfall patterns, and it take just a little tip into drier conditions to make a huge impact on 38 million people in California and over a billion in India.  

And those three places also share the same kind of native understory damages to their biomes, causing desertification in former native perennial grassland and savannah plant communities.  

Plus all these three areas are getting drier and more desert-like each year, and so far nobody seems to have noticed that there is anything wrong with that, nor any governments putting together budgets to reverse that course?  

That is what I am calling spatial extinction of humans on a relatively small scale due to changes in climate in already arid areas.  Parts of western and central India, parts of Australia, parts of California like along the central and southern coast, may have a significant decrease in population when the climate stabilized to a new normal and drier conditions.  

I see that spatial extinction already happening in parts of the Mojave desert, where you can drive mile after mile along the road out of 29 Palms goijng toward Amboy crater and Sheephole pass, and see the dozens of abandoned homes, or in the Central valley at the ghost town of Two Rocks in the San Joaquin valley--You do not see any dead bodies out there, but everyone had to flee when the water ran out and the rains stopped.

Thanks Ken.  I made a mistake, it is Three Rocks in Fresno County, not Two Rocks, California which is in northern California.  Three Rocks in on the western border of one of the largest irrigation districts in the USA that got its water cut off two years ago.

The issue is if tens of millions or a billion people live in an area that is rainfall-borderline arid to begin with, and in California we have a natural 6 month summer drought, and India' monsoon only occurs for half of the year, you can run into a lot of trouble quickly if climate changes.

So if there is a permanent change in climate towards less rainfall, in California first a lot of the  farmers who use 80% of the developed surface water, got cut off from surface water supplies two years ago.  Then to get water, the farmers pump groundwater to the extent that when you remove the weight of the water out of the ground and evaporate it on your crops, California has moved upwards 0.6 inch, that you can read at http://www.climatecentral.org/news/epic-drought-in-west-is-moving-mountains-17924.

It is quite amazing to me that humans with their sophisticated tools can move mountains, just by pumping water out of the ground?

All of those old rainfall records really do not matter in 2015 when you are trying to water your garden or wash the dishes or irrigate your California farmlands, or hoping that the migrating salmon will not die during their two migrations a year?

It is important what the numbers of people and cattle are in an area when the environmental shifts occur that will force some or most of those people to flee, just like in the Indus Valley or the Southwest Anasazi.    

That is why I am suggesting, and Ken you would be the perfect person to start this process through your contacts,, to get funding for someone to write a computer program where impacts of climate changes could be projected into the future for a society?  We need some computer models to draw future scenarios if and when climates do change. 

I encourage anyone following this topic, to read the "House of Rain", where the writer by walking on foot to see the migration out of the Southwest from the Anasazi  people's perspective.  I consider it among the top-10 most important books I have ever read, and look a lot like part of India's and parts of California's future?

The Anasazi left behind a lot of pottery when they left--will we leave behind cars, coffee tables, Beanie Babies and desktops?   Will future archaeologists look at the Beanie Babies as some unusual cultural relict?

I have been thinking about this question, and maybe if it could be asked more specifically, for example.  There are dozens to maybe 100 different constants that must function within certain tolerances on a second to second basis, in order for modern humans to survive in a particular place.  Constants like monthly rainfall, high and low temperatures,  water supply, fossil fuel availability, food production, domesticated animal production, etc.  

All of these constants intermesh like fine-toothed gears to allow a modern civilization survive, and the question is, which gears could climate change gum-up- that could start a cascading effect across the whole system that we need to survive?

Then, if you take a few steps back to see the bigger picture of our single species, are there  flaws in our genetic make up and in the artificial systems we have created that we need to survive in the first place, that make us vulnerable to variations or changes in nature or the environment?

MY biggest concern is that we are a very genetically uniform monotypic species, and that we do not have any relatives/species of the genus Homo around any more.  And also we invest a lot of money in military around the planet, instead of all of that money fixing up and propping up the natural environment that we all depend on.  

It is like reading a science fiction novel about a group of people on a space ship, and instead of using their time and efforts to fix the space ship's damages that it gets over time, they have divided themselves into groups, and they are each building weapons to not only kill each other, but damage the space ship at the same time, like the planet's nuclear weapons, and even conventional weapons shooting all of that toxic heavy metal lead all around.  

So by not fixing up the space ship so that it is less vulnerable to changes, when it runs into changes in the constants that we depend on, that is probably when the ship will hit the sand. 

Kenneth, thank you for your reply.  What I am getting at, is for the last 5,000 years the humans across the planet have expected a certain climate constant each year to live and farm in those areas, that I will call the planetary "climate blanket".  Now that we have done five major changes to the planet in the last 200 years, that blanket is having problems:

1.) Added massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, 2.) Removed most of the planet's native plant understory 3.) Removed most of the Pseudomonas host plants from India the Middle East, Africa, and perhaps the Americas, and 4.) Have airborne jet exhaust "rain cloud eliminators" and "high altitude cloud generators" constantly adding soot to the upper atmosphere, and 5.) Through constant grazing of arid areas, and plowing marginal arid areas, Permanent Dust Clouds have formed over the Middle East and north Africa, that keep rain clouds from forming, and blocks the movement of moisture, causing droughts downstream.

The fires in Alaska today, image attached, and the drought in parts of India and California and Australia, right now, could be looked at like tears in the "climate blanket" we have been used to, since we became an agricultural species.  Climate change may not tear the whole blanket into shreds all at once, but it may make tears the size of California or the size of India,. or when less and less ice forms around the Arctic Circle and the permafrost starts melting and catching fire, for example.

And within those relative small tears in the planet's climate blanket,  if drought become the new norm for that climate of those areas, it make make it impossible for the numbers of people that live in those area, to continue to live in the lifestyle that they established in those area hundreds to thousands of years ago, like the Anasazi in the Southwest USA.

That is where the "wiping out"issue come into play.  Fortunately in modern times, we can usually move ourselves to a moister area faster than a drought can kill us, but a permanent drought WILL wipe out a particular lifestyle in areas where the climate blanket has a permanent tear in it.

However, these "climate blanket tears" are only permanent if humans do nothing to fix the tear.  Many tears around the world could be repaired, if the countries with the tears converted all of their annual military spending to fixing the tear, like India or Arabia, or Pakistan or Australia or the USA, for example. Outside of North Africa, those are the easiest climate blanket tears to repair, but it will need the same amount of money annually that is being spent by the military of each of those countries to fix the tears. 

Kenneth, thanks for your reply.  What I am trying to describe, I think was very well summed up 60 years ago in a two volume set of books from a symposium on the topic of "Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth" edited by William L. Thomas Jr., by the University of Chicago Press.  

These two volumes, in my library, I consider among the top-10 most important books I have ever read.  Because at the time when they were written, when you read  the different papers that were presented in the mid-1950s, there was concern about the cumulative effects that the humans had already made to the planet by that time.  

They were mainly talking about the major forces humans have used to change the planet, like fire, clearing of forests, irrigated agriculture, residential-industrial land use,  raw-material consumption, physical changes in soils under agriculture, etc.

Looking at the various ways us humans have been using every means at our disposal to try and undermining our ability to continue to survive on this planet, by putting the planet under attack by many different methods all at the same time.  

So what I am suggesting, is that the planet so far has fortunately bounced back overall,  but when you put the additional Five Constant Pressures that I outlines in my earlier email (Adding massive CO2, Removing the planet's native understory, Removing rain-producing Pseudomonas host plants, Jet exhaust soot sprayed in high altitudes, and grazing/plowing marginal arid areas) on the natural systems that support life here, then you could reach a tipping point, or perhaps we are already teetering on that point right now as we write these comments back and forth?

We could point out, yes, there have been droughts or fires or whatever in the past.  But then when it is the worst fire or the worst drought or the hottest weather in recorded history, I think those event could be signs that we have arrived at a tipping point in history?  What I am also suggesting, is that with a lot of effort and with all of those annual military funds world-wide, we could tip the climate and ecological balance back in the planet's favor.

And  both of us being members of the current group of elders, I hope that we elders can be very honest about what we think might be happening to all of us right now, so that serious discussions can get started about what to do?  

In modern societies there are so many economic consequences for making the right changes that there is a reluctance in even suggesting what those changes should be. Similar to when the Titanic hit the iceberg--even when the ship is filling with water the captains of society are reluctant to tell everyone there is a problem?  

I strongly believe that we have many choices, and the two easy ones is to keep going what we are doing now, and have millions of people impacted wherever the climate get permanent tears in the future, and try to stay ahead of it by migrating to somewhere else?  Or get the planet fixed up where the human wear and tear needs to be repaired to make those areas less vulnerable to climate changes in the future?  

I got a beautiful image of the little tiny bit of Pseudomonas host trees on the island of Sri Lanka and the southern tip of India yesterday, producing their signature long narrow cloud, putting those bacteria airborne, like a smoke stack that is cloud-seeding, image attached.  I can see a whole bunch of the Pseudomonas-host trees planted all across the arid Middle East and North Africa in the future, to bring the rains back to those lands?

Kenneth, you seem to be living in a different world than me where global temperatures subside. In my world the global temperatures continue rising as documented for example by NASA´s GISTEMP.

In near future the costs of "natural disasters" caused by anthropogenic climate warming will outweight the benefits of continued hydrocarbon use. Our style of industrial civilisation is very dependend from infrastructure like roads, power supply, data lines and so on. Floods, storms and fires will damage infrastructure faster than it can be repaired in more and more parts of the world. Droughts and floods will damage or destroy agriculture. This can very well end our style of living and our style of civilisation.

Wouldn´t it be clever to change from coal and hydrocarbon dependence to a use of sustainable energy sources like solar and wind power? I think our style of living in the future depends very much from our answer to that question.

Kenneth, electrical power and chemical power can be produced with sustainable energy and be stored. Perhaps not in the needed quantity right now but we should try now and achieve in the near future. Technology will never drop back because we have more knowledge, keeping growing.

1998 seems to be a single year with that high global temperatures (caused by El Nino) in the last century while in this century we already had 3 years with such high global temperatures and in this century only 15 years have passed. I would call this rising temperatures, at least compared to any year in the last century. If you look at the graphs of HadCRUT4 or NASA´s GISTEMP since the 1970s there have always been pauses or even subsiding temperatures, just to continue rising higher than ever before in temperature record after the pause.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png

I am not going to interfere with all the charts and graphs being added to this discussion so far, and add my own charts and graphs, but instead want to add another perspective that may be important, like PEE.

The issue of Planetary Environmental Ethics or PEE.  Let;s say, by consuming a lot of fossil fuels in the USA, or coal in China or India, we cause the permafrost and arctic icecap to melt or low-lying islands in an ocean somewhere to become uninhabitable?  

How close to home or how far does our environmental ethics have to extend on this planet?  Does my car driving in California impact on the ability for someone else to survive--like the famous "Butterfly Effect"?  Or by eating a wheat bread sandwich for lunch, did I cause the extinction of a small piece of native prairie where that wheat was grown on?  Does my starting my car today causes a polar bear to die?

And if nobody has any environmental ethics, even for themselves, then all bets are off for the survival of that group and possibly for the survival of someone else on the planet who is going to be impacted by the lack of ethics from those doing the environmental damages.

"Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions" is another one of those top-10 most important books I have ever read, and it is written as a contrast between the Native American perspective of environmental ethics, where everything in nature is sacred, and the European perspective when they arrived in North America, that "every blade of grass has a price tag on it."  There is a chapter called the "Green Frog Skins" which is what Lame Deer calls dollar bills.

Whatever happens with climate changes in the future, if a society is lacking environmental ethics, the people in charge may not be able to change course within their society, to modify the climate changes fast enough, to avoid having to flee the consequences of those changes, like the Anasazi, Indus Valley civilization, Maya, etc.

I know a lot of Western countries who have a history or even a presence of violence and warfare so my picture of them should be dark too?

Craig, I am riding the 10 km to work and back with my bicycle most of the year. The orginal thought was that I do it for the environment and the future of my children. But it is much more now, it is my fitness training, an experience of landscape that changes during the year, the experience of wildlife and, also an important thought for me, it is independece, independence of a complicated car I can´t repair myself, independence of gasoline and gasoline prices, for me it is freedom.

I have a car and can share it with my wife and my younger doughter in this way but most of the time it is just parked in the garage.

I wouldn´t reduce this lifestyle to ethics, it is also joy. I mean it doesn´t matter why you are doing something if you are doing the right thing. It is much easier to convince someone of something if it is fun instead of an ethic exercise.

Kenneth, it may be true that average temperatures in Germany did not rise in the last decade. It is because the North Atlantic Current has weakened (or it is blanketed by cool freshwater from melting Arctic ice) and we frequently have cold air from the Northwest and North. But when we have air from the South it is frequently very hot. We had new absolute temperature maxima in the last weeks and a new heat wave ist just arriving. People say we didn´t have such extremes in the past.

Hans-Werner, Yes, those new extremes are what I am calling tears in the planetary climate that the people in India and California are hoping will not become permanent, like the uneven monsoon this summer in India and the decade-long drought in California.  You can see the monsoon issues at http://www.imd.gov.in/section/nhac/dynamic/Monsoon_frame.htm and the California drought issues at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

Yes, we can argue that various areas have extreme weather events in the past, but it is the increase in severity and the increase in frequency that is so alarming, and could result in a civilization-ender in various already-arid parts of the world if those extremes become permanent.  

For example, I remember the California rainfall from 1960 to 1975, we might have a drought one out of every 10 years.  That has switched to a drought eight out of ten years, today's Drought Monitor map attached.  

California and India right now are the Ground Zeros for climate change, so all the researchers of climate, climate change and weather models should pull up a chair and watch what over a billion people will have to contend with, and make decisions about.  

That way, everyone else on the planet can monitor in real time, our mistakes or our successes, so you may learn what to do or not do, when climate change becomes a permanently resident in your neighborhood in the future?