New Global Warming Facts

[demonfork]

Here are some facts for you...

some facts for you

facts

The method by which the average global temperature is calculated is extremely flawed.

.

Typical dipshit response.

[Army of GOD]

Here are some facts for you...

some facts for you

facts

The method by which the average global temperature is calculated is extremely flawed.

.

Typical dipshit response.

Typical dipshit response.

[Neoteny]

But I hate it when people blindly accept the BS Al Gore spews without question.

Failpocalypse.

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

Or maybe it's the smart thing to do when there is no proof for one theory versus another.

You keep using these words like a toddler that has learned some foul language. You keep repeating them to get a response with no idea what they mean.

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

I'm not saying science isn't useful, I'm saying it isn't as reliable as "you people" (inb4 "what do you mean 'you people'?") believe it is. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again.

And you bleat out this ragged whore of an argument why? Nobody here is claiming anything beyond the realm of science. Does science tell us extremely simple things (seriously, like fifth-grade level) about the carbon cycle and properties of heat? Fucking right it does. If you want to talk about the flaws of science, more power to you. If you want to build straw men in an attempt to temper those of us who understand how science works in a limp-wristed effort to keep us from making fun of someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "theory," then I suggest you get used to being mocked, too, for thinking such people need defending. Mr. Boston here has yet to put forth anything other than trite talking points that have been addressed by myself and others dozens of times (and he has the gall to criticize people for listening to Al Gore... unfettered hypocrisy), and you decide to go all white knight to help out because his parroting "exists for a reason?" Please...

Obviously you can turn this against the "agnostics", because there's always an argument against a position. But as I already stated, I lean towards the GW believers.

As if that matters.

It just annoys me when other people are so incredibly full of themselves and belittle the other side's ability to think critically or whatever.

Perhaps the interwebs are not the place for you. It's serious business around these parts. If what you say doesn't make sense, expect to be called out on it. If you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again, expect to be ridiculed.

I'm not saying I'm smarter than people here. I'm just trying to point out that the opposing side of the argument exists for a reason.

And we must always take them seriously, and with the utmost, sincere respect, even when they willfully shit on all that is decent. Point taken.

Also,

then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

WAT

Seriously, that smarmy arrogance you brought forth earlier would flow like mercury through an MMR vaccine into john9blue's twitching typing fingers...

[Army of GOD]

But I hate it when people blindly accept the BS Al Gore spews without question.

Failpocalypse.

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

Or maybe it's the smart thing to do when there is no proof for one theory versus another.

You keep using these words like a toddler that has learned some foul language. You keep repeating them to get a response with no idea what they mean.

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

I'm not saying science isn't useful, I'm saying it isn't as reliable as "you people" (inb4 "what do you mean 'you people'?") believe it is. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again.

And you bleat out this ragged whore of an argument why? Nobody here is claiming anything beyond the realm of science. Does science tell us extremely simple things (seriously, like fifth-grade level) about the carbon cycle and properties of heat? Fucking right it does. If you want to talk about the flaws of science, more power to you. If you want to build straw men in an attempt to temper those of us who understand how science works in a limp-wristed effort to keep us from making fun of someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "theory," then I suggest you get used to being mocked, too, for thinking such people need defending. Mr. Boston here has yet to put forth anything other than trite talking points that have been addressed by myself and others dozens of times (and he has the gall to criticize people for listening to Al Gore... unfettered hypocrisy), and you decide to go all white knight to help out because his parroting "exists for a reason?" Please...

Obviously you can turn this against the "agnostics", because there's always an argument against a position. But as I already stated, I lean towards the GW believers.

As if that matters.

It just annoys me when other people are so incredibly full of themselves and belittle the other side's ability to think critically or whatever.

Perhaps the interwebs are not the place for you. It's serious business around these parts. If what you say doesn't make sense, expect to be called out on it. If you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again, expect to be ridiculed.

I'm not saying I'm smarter than people here. I'm just trying to point out that the opposing side of the argument exists for a reason.

And we must always take them seriously, and with the utmost, sincere respect, even when they willfully shit on all that is decent. Point taken.

Also,

then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

WAT

Seriously, that smarmy arrogance you brought forth earlier would flow like mercury through an MMR vaccine into john9blue's twitching typing fingers...

ohlawdy.jpg

[Neoteny]

That's a bit more your speed.

[thegreekdog]

The conservatives didn't listen to me. Ah well, I'll try again in fifteen or so pages.

[PLAYER57832]

If you actually read what I have written... I never say it isn't happening. I say it's not proven.

Except that the Earth is warming IS proven. This is a matter of data and accepting what it says, not theory. There is no serious debate. There are dissenters, sure. People hired by Dow Chemical, etc.


If you have more references attempting to show that is wrong.. present them. I explained pretty clearly why the references presented earlier were just wrong.

I think we should curb fossil fuel use... Maybe because of this is true, but mostly because it is good for other reasons.

This gets closer to theory. There is some disagreement over exactly how much each component is contributing to global warming. However, the evidence is a lot stronger than you wish to imply.

Just as an example, one of the documents referenced above tried to take 30 years of data and say that there was no evidence of global warming when you compared those 30 years to the past 100. The problem? Well, folks were talking about global warming, showing evidence more than 30 years ago. By starting with 30, then looking at just 100 years, they nicely take in the precise time period when change has been shown. It is gradual change, (not sure the exact figure today, but I remember hearing one half of a degree increase worldwide a couple decades ago) therefore, it is relatively easy to just pick out bits, as above to claim there is no change. However, real scientists look at the whole data set, not just selecte pieces. THAT evidence is .. well, I hesistate to say "clear" because the data is so massive its basically impossible for any individual to process it all.. however, the evidence is firm.

When you look at the whole data set, there is a clear spike that cooincides with industrialization. Because that did not happen all at once, because there is some buffering or "give" in the environment, because of the way air currents flow, because we still had vast swaths of timber, etc. etc etc. , its not an instant "factories appear and the next day we see a spike", no. However, the spike is there.

On the global warming thing... I think it may be true... But I hate it when people blindly accept the BS Al Gore spews without question.

That you cite Al Gore shows how LITTLE you truly know of this issue. Al Gore did not invent this issue. You might note that neither I, Neoteny nor anyone else using science has quoted Al Gore as evidence. He is not a scientist, is not even the best spokesperson. Warnings of global climate change LONG predate Al Gore.

AND.. I can tell you how the dissent has evolved. Initially, the "poo-pooing" was basically "lying with the truth". They would look at the data and say "see, only ONE QUARTER OF A DEGREE!" ... and then claim that such a small change should be dismissed. Except, on a world scale, such a "small" change was significant indeed. Now, the change has come and the increase is more than one quarter of a degree.

Since more people have begun to understand that even small changes, globally, matter, the shift is to attacking various other aspects. Some outright just dismiss the idea, basically just saying the data is too complicated, so nothing can be shown. (but they don't bother to try to understand it, either). Others attack small pieces.. maybe saying, as you seem to above that cutting carbon won't solve the problem. Sort of true, but saying it may not be enough to solve the problem is not at all the same as saying either there is no problem or that cutting carbon will be of no help in the issue. Many times firefighters know their hoses cannot carry enough water to actually put out a fire, but they can help keep it from spreading while they let the fire basically burn itself out. Or, they can target specific areas for a short time, enough, say to get people out of the way and such. You do what you can.

Call me agnostic.

Nope. Denying data doesn't make you an agnostic.

[Neoteny]

The conservatives didn't listen to me. Ah well, I'll try again in fifteen or so pages.

Let it be known that I appreciate the effort. A discussion about any of your other points would be infinitely more interesting than "scienceisn'tgodrawr" or "Al Gore has a tiny penis."

Also: I'm surprised polarbeargategategate hasn't been brought up yet.

[PLAYER57832]

Here are some facts for you...

some facts for you

facts

The method by which the average global temperature is calculated is extremely flawed.

.

Typical dipshit response.

If you have real data to show we are wrong, present it. However, here is the problem. It has to be scientifically valid data.

and THAT is the real issue here. Those who "dissent" are really people who either have an extraordinary vested interest in not believing its real (oil company folks, etc.) OR people who distrust science. AND, they feed on each other.

[PLAYER57832]

Also: I'm surprised polarbeargategategate hasn't been brought up yet.

It was.

[PLAYER57832]

The conservatives didn't listen to me. Ah well, I'll try again in fifteen or so pages.

I, too appreciate the effort, though I would not call the dissenters in this case "conservatives". (right wing, perhaps, but not conservative) You certainly don't have to be a liberal to understand scientific data! (in fact, my experience is that flaming/extreme liberals can be quite deficient in that aspect ).

The problem is that you cannot simply say "accept the facts.." because their whole point is to dismiss the facts. AND, that is based on a worldview focused on utterly dismissing most forms of science. They will accept math, some basic physics, even some chemistry. However, anything that gives a broad understanding of "how the world works" threatens their world view and cannot be accepted.

Where conservativism does tie in is that a lot of big corporations are quite happy to feed this type of thinking. However, that is beginning to (slowly) change. CEOs might be partially blind, but they are generally not stupid.

[Neoteny]

Also: I'm surprised polarbeargategategate hasn't been brought up yet.

It was.

Oh, you're right. Nobunaga posted a link. I shoulda guessed...

[oVo]

There are several Glacier National Parks in the World that have existed
on three different continents. Their current problem is the glaciers at all
three have receded and will soon be gone. So what will be the tourist
attraction for visitors to these parks when the glaciers no longer exist
and should these parks be renamed?

[HapSmo19]

In case you're curious about what actual climate scientists think ("alarmists" if you're a troglodyte), you can read a typical response here.

It turns out that Realclimate.org is owned by an outfit that is in essence a non-profit public relations firm called Environmental Media Services (EMS), "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues", whose Pittsburgh office houses the RealClimate server.[1] ActivistCash.com describes EMS as "the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications."[2]

EMA's listed registrant, Betsy Ensley, engages in the objective, non-partisan pursuit of "manag[ing] BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org public awareness website".[3] She also apparently ran WomenAgainstBush.org, and former Harvard string theorist (and still-hilarious climate blogger) Lubos Motl​ notes that when Ensley was campaigning against John Ashcroft​ her secretary was Kalee Kreider, now Al Gore​'s spokesperson.[4] MoveOn is of course in part a George Soros​ venture, and attentive climate realists recall the kafuffle over Soros supporting Hansen's alarmism.[5]

Motl describes EMS as "primarily an organization to pay for junk science about food and beverages, often hired by food companies to damage their competitors".[6] This is known as "black marketing."[7]

This is not inconsistent with my own experience with Fenton, which I first encountered nearly two decades ago. Then, they were representing a "green" lawn care products company in a legislative effort to craft new federal laws creating a secure place in a market otherwise dominated by those whose products attain prominence through competition. This is a modus operandi that will sound very familiar by the time you finish this book. Fenton has also been associated with every questionable campaign from chasing Alar off the shelves by leveraging weepy celebrities and fear tactics to promoting Mother Sheehan's tour.[8]

As critics note, the idea that RealClimate is just a bunch of unpaid "real scientists" is risible, given their methods of argumentation are often little more than smear, ridicule, cherry- picking science, and pronouncing themselves and their exclusive little climate clique as only the few "qualified' to have an opinion on man-made global warming. RealClimate's members, like Andrew Dessler of Grist and writers for the Soros-backed Climate Progress​, perpetrate a unique form of "qualification thuggery" by which anyone skeptical of their agenda are unworthy to comment, typically because they skeptic does not affiliate with the UN IPCC. When the skeptic is an IPCC author or reviewer, well he's still unqualified. And "mere physicists" such as Freeman Dyson​, or chemists, or economists, are also unqualified, but only when they disagree. After all, Dessler is a chemist, and the IPCC's "chief scientist" is no such thing at all, as you'll see.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/wh ... larmism-s#

[PLAYER57832]

Are you suggesting that Realclim is the main source of climate information?

[Metsfanmax]

In case you're curious about what actual climate scientists think ("alarmists" if you're a troglodyte), you can read a typical response here.

It turns out that Realclimate.org is owned by an outfit that is in essence a non-profit public relations firm called Environmental Media Services (EMS), "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues", whose Pittsburgh office houses the RealClimate server.[1] ActivistCash.com describes EMS as "the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications."[2]

EMA's listed registrant, Betsy Ensley, engages in the objective, non-partisan pursuit of "manag[ing] BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org public awareness website".[3] She also apparently ran WomenAgainstBush.org, and former Harvard string theorist (and still-hilarious climate blogger) Lubos Motl​ notes that when Ensley was campaigning against John Ashcroft​ her secretary was Kalee Kreider, now Al Gore​'s spokesperson.[4] MoveOn is of course in part a George Soros​ venture, and attentive climate realists recall the kafuffle over Soros supporting Hansen's alarmism.[5]

Motl describes EMS as "primarily an organization to pay for junk science about food and beverages, often hired by food companies to damage their competitors".[6] This is known as "black marketing."[7]

This is not inconsistent with my own experience with Fenton, which I first encountered nearly two decades ago. Then, they were representing a "green" lawn care products company in a legislative effort to craft new federal laws creating a secure place in a market otherwise dominated by those whose products attain prominence through competition. This is a modus operandi that will sound very familiar by the time you finish this book. Fenton has also been associated with every questionable campaign from chasing Alar off the shelves by leveraging weepy celebrities and fear tactics to promoting Mother Sheehan's tour.[8]

As critics note, the idea that RealClimate is just a bunch of unpaid "real scientists" is risible, given their methods of argumentation are often little more than smear, ridicule, cherry- picking science, and pronouncing themselves and their exclusive little climate clique as only the few "qualified' to have an opinion on man-made global warming. RealClimate's members, like Andrew Dessler of Grist and writers for the Soros-backed Climate Progress​, perpetrate a unique form of "qualification thuggery" by which anyone skeptical of their agenda are unworthy to comment, typically because they skeptic does not affiliate with the UN IPCC. When the skeptic is an IPCC author or reviewer, well he's still unqualified. And "mere physicists" such as Freeman Dyson​, or chemists, or economists, are also unqualified, but only when they disagree. After all, Dessler is a chemist, and the IPCC's "chief scientist" is no such thing at all, as you'll see.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/wh ... larmism-s#

You apparently did not bother to look at the actual authors for the letter in question, two well respected scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Perhaps the "guest commentary" bit should have clued you in?

[BigBallinStalin]

But I hate it when people blindly accept the BS Al Gore spews without question.

Failpocalypse.

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

Or maybe it's the smart thing to do when there is no proof for one theory versus another.

You keep using these words like a toddler that has learned some foul language. You keep repeating them to get a response with no idea what they mean.

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

I'm not saying science isn't useful, I'm saying it isn't as reliable as "you people" (inb4 "what do you mean 'you people'?") believe it is. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again.

And you bleat out this ragged whore of an argument why? Nobody here is claiming anything beyond the realm of science. Does science tell us extremely simple things (seriously, like fifth-grade level) about the carbon cycle and properties of heat? Fucking right it does. If you want to talk about the flaws of science, more power to you. If you want to build straw men in an attempt to temper those of us who understand how science works in a limp-wristed effort to keep us from making fun of someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "theory," then I suggest you get used to being mocked, too, for thinking such people need defending. Mr. Boston here has yet to put forth anything other than trite talking points that have been addressed by myself and others dozens of times (and he has the gall to criticize people for listening to Al Gore... unfettered hypocrisy), and you decide to go all white knight to help out because his parroting "exists for a reason?" Please...

Obviously you can turn this against the "agnostics", because there's always an argument against a position. But as I already stated, I lean towards the GW believers.

As if that matters.

It just annoys me when other people are so incredibly full of themselves and belittle the other side's ability to think critically or whatever.

Perhaps the interwebs are not the place for you. It's serious business around these parts. If what you say doesn't make sense, expect to be called out on it. If you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again, expect to be ridiculed.

I'm not saying I'm smarter than people here. I'm just trying to point out that the opposing side of the argument exists for a reason.

And we must always take them seriously, and with the utmost, sincere respect, even when they willfully shit on all that is decent. Point taken.

Also,

then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

WAT

Seriously, that smarmy arrogance you brought forth earlier would flow like mercury through an MMR vaccine into john9blue's twitching typing fingers...

ITT:
(Neotony is on the far left)

[BigBallinStalin]

What sector of the US economy creates the most CO2 emissions?

I'm assuming Power--primarily from coal.

Does everyone agree?

[PLAYER57832]

What sector of the US economy creates the most CO2 emissions?

I'm assuming Power--primarily from coal.

Does everyone agree?

ask.com said that power produces over half (heat, electric, everything together) and autmobiles produce 33%.

Other sources may say something else, though

[rockfist]

I thought that concrete production accounted for a large portion of CO2 emissions.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, let's reduce CO2 emissions.

Why not start with reducing coal emissions within the US?

What are the alternatives? Wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, garbage, and petroleum-based power plants. Why not increase the production of those types? (omit petrol- and natural gas-based power plants).

Then, there's consumption. So, why not make everyone's utilities more expensive in order to curb their consumption? Sure, there'll be complaints, but if one is concerned about global warming, then how much do they really value that concern?

[Dukasaur]

Ok, let's reduce CO2 emissions.

Why not start with reducing coal emissions within the US?

What are the alternatives? Wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, garbage, and petroleum-based power plants. Why not increase the production of those types? (omit petrol- and natural gas-based power plants).

Then, there's consumption. So, why not make everyone's utilities more expensive in order to curb their consumption? Sure, there'll be complaints, but if one is concerned about global warming, then how much do they really value that concern?

Bottom line is, you can't hold the line on consumption while the population continues to expand. Let's say each of us was to use half as much energy as we do now. A tall order, but doable. And let's say in the say time frame as we learn to do that, the population doubles. Are we any further ahead? No. As long as people continue breeding like rabbits, no amount of sacrifice by the individual person will matter. We have to turn the corner on the population explosion before we can even talk about reducing total consumption.

(And that's not even considering that most of the people in the world are still racing to "catch up" to people in the West in terms of consumption.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, let's reduce CO2 emissions.

Why not start with reducing coal emissions within the US?

What are the alternatives? Wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, garbage, and petroleum-based power plants. Why not increase the production of those types? (omit petrol- and natural gas-based power plants).

Then, there's consumption. So, why not make everyone's utilities more expensive in order to curb their consumption? Sure, there'll be complaints, but if one is concerned about global warming, then how much do they really value that concern?

Bottom line is, you can't hold the line on consumption while the population continues to expand. Let's say each of us was to use half as much energy as we do now. A tall order, but doable. And let's say in the say time frame as we learn to do that, the population doubles. Are we any further ahead? No. As long as people continue breeding like rabbits, no amount of sacrifice by the individual person will matter. We have to turn the corner on the population explosion before we can even talk about reducing total consumption.

(And that's not even considering that most of the people in the world are still racing to "catch up" to people in the West in terms of consumption.)

Maybe life with a hotter Earth won't be that bad. Wouldn't the environment naturally curb human growth if nothing was done? Sure, many would die, but <shrugs> it's a different world, and humans will most likely adapt anyway.

[Dukasaur]

Bottom line is, you can't hold the line on consumption while the population continues to expand. Let's say each of us was to use half as much energy as we do now. A tall order, but doable. And let's say in the say time frame as we learn to do that, the population doubles. Are we any further ahead? No. As long as people continue breeding like rabbits, no amount of sacrifice by the individual person will matter. We have to turn the corner on the population explosion before we can even talk about reducing total consumption.

(And that's not even considering that most of the people in the world are still racing to "catch up" to people in the West in terms of consumption.)

Maybe life with a hotter Earth won't be that bad. Wouldn't the environment naturally curb human growth if nothing was done? Sure, many would die, but <shrugs> it's a different world, and humans will most likely adapt anyway.

Depends on how much of a hotter Earth. There's so much we don't know. Will global warming plateau and level off, as some new and countervailing tendency comes into play? Will it continue upward, but as a more-or-less straight line progression, which will be reversible once carbon consumption is controlled? Or will it become a geometric increase, as the positive reinforcements such as the clathrate gun come into play?

Those three possibilities give you three very different answers to your questions.

1. If the warming trend plateaus and levels off, then there's not much point in doing anything about it. The Earth will be a hotter place, oh well. Life in Pennsylvania will become more like life in Mexico. A lot of people will consider that an improvement. Large areas of the Canadian and Siberian tundra will become agriculturally viable land. Again, many people would consider that an improvement. Some areas of Africa and India might become totally unlivable, but the new land opening up in Siberia and Canada will make up for the land being lost.

2. If the warming trend continues, but only as a straight line progression which will be reversible, then the damage being done now will eventually be fixed, once the population explosion is reversed. Doable, but it requires that people stop worshipping at the altar of "growth". Parenthood needs to become unfashionable, people need to see that a calm, placid lifestyle with a lower population density is a value to be cherished. Markets that are predicated on the idea that there will always be growth and that deflation is always only temporary may have to be in for a total paradigm change.

3. If the warming trend not only continues but suddenly accelerates due to a positive feedback loop such as the clathrate gun then we are really in for a world of pain. And I don't just mean having John Goodman waving a gun at us during bowling practise. This is the really scary one. Some scientists believe this was the scenario which caused the Permian mass extinction, and that ONLY wiped out 90% or so of the Earth's biodiversity. It wouldn't have taken too much more to wipe out 100%.

That being said, humans with our technology could probably survive even if the entire natural biosphere was wiped out. We could have controlled-climate buildings, food grown hydroponically, etc., etc. But it's a bleak and depressing way to look at the future, forever living as aliens on our own planet, trapped in our bubbles, gnawing on our remorse.

So, will it be Door Number One, or Door Number Two, or Door Number Three? We just don't know yet.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks for that post, but I have one minor quibble about markets.

Bottom line is, you can't hold the line on consumption while the population continues to expand. Let's say each of us was to use half as much energy as we do now. A tall order, but doable. And let's say in the say time frame as we learn to do that, the population doubles. Are we any further ahead? No. As long as people continue breeding like rabbits, no amount of sacrifice by the individual person will matter. We have to turn the corner on the population explosion before we can even talk about reducing total consumption.

(And that's not even considering that most of the people in the world are still racing to "catch up" to people in the West in terms of consumption.)

Maybe life with a hotter Earth won't be that bad. Wouldn't the environment naturally curb human growth if nothing was done? Sure, many would die, but <shrugs> it's a different world, and humans will most likely adapt anyway.

Depends on how much of a hotter Earth. There's so much we don't know. Will global warming plateau and level off, as some new and countervailing tendency comes into play? Will it continue upward, but as a more-or-less straight line progression, which will be reversible once carbon consumption is controlled? Or will it become a geometric increase, as the positive reinforcements such as the clathrate gun come into play?

Those three possibilities give you three very different answers to your questions.

1. If the warming trend plateaus and levels off, then there's not much point in doing anything about it. The Earth will be a hotter place, oh well. Life in Pennsylvania will become more like life in Mexico. A lot of people will consider that an improvement. Large areas of the Canadian and Siberian tundra will become agriculturally viable land. Again, many people would consider that an improvement. Some areas of Africa and India might become totally unlivable, but the new land opening up in Siberia and Canada will make up for the land being lost.

2. If the warming trend continues, but only as a straight line progression which will be reversible, then the damage being done now will eventually be fixed, once the population explosion is reversed. Doable, but it requires that people stop worshipping at the altar of "growth". Parenthood needs to become unfashionable, people need to see that a calm, placid lifestyle with a lower population density is a value to be cherished. Markets that are predicated on the idea that there will always be growth and that deflation is always only temporary may have to be in for a total paradigm change.

It's not markets, but actually government intervention which is obsessed with constantly inflating its currency, boosting aggregate demand, and providing incentives to different businesses to produce goods which may not really be in demand. For me, that's more of a state problem, then a market problem.

Even domestic population growth is incentivized by the government with tax credits per child (and all sorts of benefits for those who can least afford to have kids), and with strict immigration laws, the only way to increase one's population is to domestically produce--instead of reducing growth rates in other countries by loosening immigration laws.

But, yes, growth is extremely emphasized, yet what you're overlooking is the demand and supply of certain goods, and what influences that demand and supply--which may be from individuals within the markets and which may be from state intervention, which I hold accountable for most of the problems for many reasons.

3. If the warming trend not only continues but suddenly accelerates due to a positive feedback loop such as the clathrate gun then we are really in for a world of pain. And I don't just mean having John Goodman waving a gun at us during bowling practise. This is the really scary one. Some scientists believe this was the scenario which caused the Permian mass extinction, and that ONLY wiped out 90% or so of the Earth's biodiversity. It wouldn't have taken too much more to wipe out 100%.

That being said, humans with our technology could probably survive even if the entire natural biosphere was wiped out. We could have controlled-climate buildings, food grown hydroponically, etc., etc. But it's a bleak and depressing way to look at the future, forever living as aliens on our own planet, trapped in our bubbles, gnawing on our remorse.

So, will it be Door Number One, or Door Number Two, or Door Number Three? We just don't know yet.

I wasn't even aware of those other possibilities. That must make the case for intervening now much more difficult.