You act as if these AGW scientists aren't screaming at the top of their lungs to every political body that's willing to listen. Maybe I'll eventually find you specific papers and quote relevant sections, maybe I won't find it worth the time since you're not actually here on these forums for the purpose of learning and being convinced of anything.
Your choice. I do not care about those who are screaming at the top of their lungs to every political body that's willing to listen. For the simple reason that this is not the typical behavior of scientists, but, instead, of alarmists. Are there some scientists among them? Possibly. So what. I leave the study of Greta's FFF kindergarden to sociologists.
It is, of course, your decision if you want to support your claims with scientific evidence or not.
I like this discussion because I have learned a lot. Of course, not by learning from the posts of the alarmists, who give almost nothing, except the information that they have no counterarguments. But I do some research answering their attempts to make objections. And this is the part where I learn a lot of interesting things. Say, salination. I had not cared about it completely, if something is salty and there unusable today it remain unusable, so why one would care. But, once provoked, I thought, so what let's look what can be done with salty soil in some arid region where climate change gives us more rain. Just for information. It appears, a lot can be done. Desalination of soil is a procedure already done at many places, a few years are sufficient to improve the situation essentially, all one needs for this is - you guess - more water. So I was wrong thinking that such salty deserts are anyway unusable because of the salt - with enough rain, problems with salt will be solved together with the salt. That's not deep scientific research, but Wikipedia level collection of elementary information, but so what, I have learned something, corrected an own error, and gained even a new argument against the alarmists, namely another positive effect of more precipitation. I found this worth to write <a href="
https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/desalination.php">another page against the climate hysteria</a>.
Same for the issue with sea level rise. I was aware about the negligible actual increase of 3 mm per year and therefore did not care much. Once provoked, I learned a lot more, in particular that even Greenland melting completely gives not that much increase, 7.2 m, that's all. And even together with the whole Antarctica the increase will be only 66 m. Moreover, this comes only after a lot of millenia. Then I tried to find out if it would be possible to protect the whole of the Netherlands even against these 66 m. It appeared quite unproblematic. The new element, that one would have to pump the water arriving there via the Rhein river into the sea, appeared to be cheap enough to be affordable. Then I looked at the even more rigorous possibility to protect the whole Baltic Sea from the increase by cutting its connection with the North Sea. It did not look unsolvable too, even with actual technologies - no need for new technologies during the next several thousand years, imagine. The map of the Earth in the worst case of 66 m sea level rise was also interesting. See <a href="
https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/sea-level.php">this page</a>.
The point I'm trying to make to you is that if you think Russia will benefit from global warming while other nations like China suffer, or if everyone suffers but Russia suffers less, there will be a lot of powerful people with nothing to lose who've already come close to engaging in nuclear wars in the past, and if Russia's willing to use nukes to protect its spoils in Siberia despite hardly doing anything with the territory at present, there's no reason China wouldn't do the same when they have nowhere else to go. Thus you might want to reconsider your position on this issue because it's as much in your interest to act as it is in everyone else's.
Point understood, but rejected as nonsensical given that I do not share at all your prediction for the fate of China during climate change.
The naivity!!
Some how you expect people who can barely write their own name or read to somehow learn how to terraform vast areas on the fly.
Somehow you think that fertilizer is all you need and that there is enough fertilizer sitting on the shelves to do the job.
The list goes on...
Surely you push your optimism to the limit?
Don't cry. Let's see: Ok, I have not expected that the level of general education in Australia has been going down that fast that even the leading personal of modern agricultural firms can barely read now. But don't worry, such things can be raised again. This does not depend on climate change, but on the system of education. Or do you think that the fate of some small farms led by some illiterates matters for the next centuries? Sorry, but they will be anyway destroyed by the standard urbanization process. Then, it does not matter where the fertilizers are sitting around, what matters is that one can buy them in the necessary amount.
Most systems of management are tentative, easily destabilized, sensitive to anomalies, take little to bring into chaos, far from robust, weakened by unknowable's etc...
Most successful farming has very little tolerance for deviations, and any of such will and most likely bring significant damage to production capacity etc.
The point being? Such is life. Grow up if you are panicked by such things. As a theoretical physicist, I'm working in an area where we have 99.9% certainty of failure for the individual scientist. But this does not even diminish the certainty that science will nonetheless progress because a single successful scientist is sufficient for this. In comparison, farming is much more safe. And we don't have to care about the fate of the unfortunate farmers who go bankrupt. It is sufficient that the successful farmers deliver enough food, that's all.
The ecological equilibrium takes very little sudden change to lose stability. The impact of losing that equilibrium even slightly is unknown but it is known that even the smallest of sudden, artificially generated changes can have unpredictable and severe impacts. Impacts that have ongoing and devastating impacts on the future of that ecology.
... What answers does your Crystal ball called "Optimism" tell you?
Ecology is a highly ideological science. Of course, it gives a lot of interesting information, as it should if it is science. But the general answer is quite simple: If one ecosystem is destroyed, another one will take over. Big deal. My Crystal ball called "Optimism" tells me to read the even the articles posted by alarmists because one often can extract useful information even from such propaganda. In this case, we read in the article you linked to suggest that all the corals will die because of bleaching the following observation:
"Quite frankly, [I'm] astonished by the speed of these changes," he said.
"What we're seeing on the Great Barrier Reef now is a huge transformation in the mix of species.
"We're seeing less and less of the heat-sensitive, susceptible species — the so-called losers — compared to the tougher corals, which are persisting.
So, this guy was astonished by the speed of these changes. I'm not astonished, because this is what my Crystal ball has told me before.
All one has to do is to take such aside information which does not really fit into the ideology more serious than the parts supporting the ideology.
Ocean ecology can be extremely sensitive to rapid changes such as temperature and CO2 uptake.
By construction. Not of Nature, but of this science named ecology. One could compare it with history. It describes quite large societies of different species. As human empires, they are impressive but unstable and don't survive for long. The end of such empires is usually not a picture of happiness of the people involved. But humanity survives, it changes, and new societies will be created. So, if climate changes, many ecological systems will be destroyed. But other, new ecological systems will be created. Similar to history, ecology cannot tell us anything about these new systems. So, all it can tell us is the actual state of those complex systems, and that these particular systems will be destroyed in near future. Moreover, even history is much more optimistic, given that all the locals in existing empires like to write about the history of their empire becoming great. There is no such optimistic part of the history of those ecosystems we have now becoming as great as they are now, destroying a lot of other ecosystems (which will never be studied by ecologists), during their successful time. That's simply because those heroic corals don't write optimistic papers in ecology journals.
Ecology studies only decline, by construction. So, one has to care if one takes a whining ecologist seriously.
This does not mean that one should not care at all about what they say. Say, a serious decline in the number of existing species is nothing good, and something worth to care about.
