What's best for Earth?

We can survive heat just fine, and have. There is zero (0) probability that CO2 from fossil fuel consumption could cause any part of the earth to become uninhabitably hot.

 

We can easily afford to lose more cold. Periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" for a reason before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

 

You mean people in hospitals? They're covered.

If you're at risk due to underlying health problems (obesity, cardiac issues, diabetes, hypertension, etc) but not seriously ill, you should probably avoid Florida. Having said that, a healthy person between the ages of 5 and 95 can tolerate 100 degrees when they adapt to it.

Of course, adapting to the heat means rules - you can't carry on as though it's 60 degrees. You need to leave all your windows wide open overnight to allow the house to cool down, then have them all closed up tight by about 8am, and all blinds and curtains drawn. Remain indoors between 8am and sunset as much as possible, only being outside for short spans of time. Don't do any heavy physical work, or exercise. Don't use appliances as they generate too much heat. One computer is okay, but no ovens, large tvs, clothes dryers, vacuum cleaners, etc etc. Ensure you have excellent window insulation via thermal drapes. Use fans if rooms become too 'stuffy'. If you're in a house you need to plant fast growing deciduous trees along your 'hot' side and your west elevation. These last will make an enormous difference once they reach about 6m.

 

They were 'optimum' when there weren't 7 billion of us ...... plus half a planet of concrete and 10 trillion cars.

 

You will not survive consistent 50c+ temps. No one will. Most animals and plant life won't.

 

Yes, when it’s hot stay inside an air conditioned space. Plenty of power from fossil fuel fired electrical power generation plants available 24/7/365.

 

All pumping insane amounts of hot air back out into the world.

IOW: stop using airconditioning and you won't need airconditioning

 

They still are. The number of us is irrelevant to the fact that warmer temperatures increase precipitation and bioproductivity.

What on earth are you blabbering about? Google Earth will show you how very, very little of the earth is concrete, and how insignificant a billion (not trillion, LOL) cars are compared with the earth.

 

There is zero (0) probability that any significant portion of the earth's surface could reach 50C more than very briefly as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 caused by use of fossil fuels. The earth's average surface temperature is currently only 15C even though half of it can be considered tropical or subtropical. HELLO??

 

It doesn't need to be 50C. It only takes a wet bulb temperatures of 35C (95F) to kill all large animals that can't get into air conditioning. At 35C wet bulb, a human resting in the shade while soaking wet still dies from heat stress.

Some parts of the earth already reach 31C wet bulb. It would take about a 7C rise to make portions of the earth uninhabitable due to heat stress. Not 4C, because global heating is unequal. Places that are already crazy hot tend to warm up less.

If climate sensitivity is at the high end of estimates at 4.5C/doubling, +7C would be reached in about a century, if fossil fuel usage continues as usual. So, definitely not a zero probability.

It's not just places like India and Pakistan that have to worry. Lethal heat stress days would hit much of the eastern USA as well. Most of the humans could get into air conditioning, but most livestock would die.

 

Historically, being in the 80% scientific majority of your time would have made you wrong 100% of the time.

 

I’d like to see your math that shows a zero probability. Be sure to show your work.

 

be sure you avoid medical science, in that case. too risky

 

which is a big part of the problem

 

I am skeptical. I know my limitations; and because of that, I understand that humanity doesn't know almost everything and that we don't know anything necessarily.

 

No, we don't. But surely a move towards more sustainable living is a good move? More food, more water, cleaner air, etc etc.

 

The key to sustainability is ingenuity. The thing about ingenuity is that it has a completely voluntary nature. Ingenuity cannot be compelled. In fact, ingenuity is only ever stifled by compulsion.

The difference between a natural resource and a raw material is that a natural resource can be combined with ingenuity.
The combining of material and ingenuity is called industry. Almost everything human beings need to survive is the product of industry. We can never run out of material, indeed we cannot even destroy material; all we can do is change its form. However, we can stifle ingenuity. The most important components of environmental sustainability are the incentives that a free market provides. Conserving free markets is the first step to sustainability.

 

I'm all for voluntary, in all things (almost!). Democracy is the only way to fly.

 

I'm glad that we don't have a democracy; I quite prefer our republic, but I'm feeling you on the voluntary. I'm all about maximizing the voluntary and minimizing the compulsory. In my opinion, the only measure of individual liberty worth sacrificing is the tiny fraction of a percent that maximizes the liberty secured.

 

"The Earth" will be fine no matter what for another couple Billion years. As for us Humans, we will leave here or go extinct no matter what as well. In the short term we will probably keep making our environment here untenable for another century before going interplanetary.

 

I'm a firm believer in 'will to live'. We all have it to some extent, and that extent should be the only control. If a person cares so little for their future that they do nothing at all to preserve it, then they should be allowed to reap the result of that. Interferring is the attempt to subvert the will of that person.

 

I have never seen a prediction of 50C+ temps due to climate change other than in localized areas (like Death Valley).

 

It's a rounded figure. And yes, it is already being experienced more frequently in places like the Middle East, Australia, Africa, America, etc.

 

And how do you propose to arrange such temperatures? There is zero (0) probability that CO2 from fossil fuel consumption could cause them.

What a load of absurd scaremongering nonsense. Our ancestors EVOLVED in the tropics. They almost never died from heat stress, just as chimpanzees do not today. Equatorial Africa abounds with large animals, including humans who have no air conditioning.

And have for billions of years, including almost all the time before the Pleistocene, when temperatures were far hotter than today. The large animals are still here. Hello?

Nonsense. It has been that hot for hundreds of millions of years. Which parts of the earth were uninhabitable?

And the paleoclimate record indisputably shows there is a temperature ceiling more than 7C hotter than current levels, and large animals survived it quite handsomely, thank you very much.

Which is impossible, or the earth would have been far hotter when CO2 was three doublings higher.

Nope. Zero. Take it to the bank.

<yawn> You forgot the negative feedback: higher temperature -> faster evaporation -> more clouds -> lower temperature.

 

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL - TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY
On this, I believe we agree.