patrick.net

Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today

HOWEVER, Breitbart concludes: Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Even if it were true, the loss of a few miles of coastal land would be made up by opening 10000s of square miles of tundra

It's gonna be fun abandoning all these coastal cities: Miami, New York, San Francisco

Even if seas did rise like that, you think the cities would be abandoned? And not do like the Dutch did, and preserve sea lands with the technology of the 1600's?

Even if seas did rise like that, you think the cities would be abandoned? And not do like the Dutch did, and preserve sea lands with the technology of the 1600's?

climate change should stop exhaling co2.

It's your moral duty to save the world

denialists

I am going to keep on breathing so that plants can thrive.

There's no danger of you contributing anything new.

Denialists are subject to the same laws that all animals are subject to but they so stupid they think they are special.

We fart CO2? But CO2 is non- flammable, and all us boys know full well we can light out farts.

But a city like Miami is built on porous ground....there is simply not much you can do. You can elevate a building or a street. But many people will look at this and they will look at the bills, and decide to go live on firmer ground. And once people start leaving, you will have abandoned buildings full of mold, rats and crime, more people will leave. I'm quite certain Miami will be abandoned. A lot of sea front property wealth will rot away.

they should lobby for nuclear power

In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…

CO2 levels were the same then as they are now

You know, it’s strange that this didn’t happen in Venice.

The time it would take for sea level to move that far inland is orders of magnitude slower than the time it takes to build a big city from scratch. You act like Miami will be abandoned in 50 years.

Maybe in 100yrs, or 150yrs. Who cares?
And yes they will build new cities from scratch - elsewhere.

Suspicious claims, are these those same scientists that made a debate out of linking tobacco use with cancer and other illnesses, that were extremely well funded by lobbyists for industry?

The entire history of human civilization is based on migration due to climate. The place I was born (Chicago) was under miles of ice less than 10,000 years ago which is a blip in the history of the planet.

We have plenty of time to adapt, outrun or engineer better pumping/drainage systems which seems much more doable than radically changing our entire economies to try and change the planet's climate.

Btw if you don't change radically the entire economy, you're not gonna deal with 3 feet of water. More like 20 feet. And then 40 feet: It's not gonna stop until we stop.

Heraclitusstudent says

Btw if you don't change radically the entire economy, you're not gonna deal with 3 feet of water. More like 20 feet. And then 40 feet: It's not gonna stop until we stop.

I don't think we're treating the planet well by any means, but where in the actual fuck does 20-40 feet of water come from? I've never bought this theory. It makes no sense. All the ice on land melting into the sea isn't going to raise sea levels 20 fucking feet.

My folks had a property on a barrier island in the panhandle of Florida. Water levels look no different than 30 years ago. A 2-3' difference would wipe this place out. Treat the planet well, but the bill of goods being sold seems like it's shit.

The entire history of the industrial era is based on radically changing our entire economies. Fyi: We were using fucking horses 200yrs ago, and coal 100 yrs ago.

Heraclitusstudent says

The entire history of the industrial era is based on radically changing our entire economies. Fyi: We were using fucking horses 200yrs ago, and coal 100 yrs ago.

Yeah - but the past radical economic/industrial changes were obvious efficiency/cost gains......often at the expense of the environment. Burning the shit out of coal and oil was worse for the environment than using horses. Burning oil and coal allowed the rapid increase, health and longevity of the human population.......which can be seen as an environmental hazard if you think humans are a parasite on earth.

if you think humans are a parasite on earth.

Malthus -> Eugenics -> Zero Population Growth -> Environmentalism

Although the earth can take many more humans than the alarmists will make you believe breeding control isn't always a bad thing but the white western countries

Better be ready with Elon's star-ships.

Now that we know without a shadow of a doubt that China broke the Montreal Treaty and is spewing out CFC-11 like no tomorrow, what happens?

Do the UN Police arrest the Chinese Factory owners? Will a bunch of Trans Soldiers in the Landswehr take over Shenzhen Special Admin Region with Merkel footing the bill?

Honestly, investing $2-3T in living in space would be a better and quicker long term solution than "Carbon Trading" or trying to build tons of windmills.

If you think $2-3 Trillions will buy "life in space" for a billion persons, you're dreaming.

And if you think AGW is tough/expensive to solve on earth, try maintaining balance in an ecosystem on a spaceship.

AGW