I don't think that everyone realizes what would happen if we did so. [0]
> Our calculated global warming in this case is 16°C, with warming at the poles about 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages ~20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world (Hatfield et al., 2011). Increased stratospheric water vapor would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer (Anderson et al., 2012).
My question is, what is going to stop this trajectory?
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/what-if-we-burn-all-t...
That is the plain truth, and we are going to keep making fun of climate activists until we get there?
There are strong signs that the small amount of increased mean tempreture seen already has been sufficient to downgrade the ability of the environment to sink what has been added.
To accurately model a physical system humanity depends upon.
> Nobody cares about this nerd stuff.
Clearly false.
Many do. Military types care about ocean tempretures as it facilitates submarine tracking, for example.
> Maybe the only argument should be that "if we burn it all, then we will all die."
Many would suggest burning 90% of it then. That's 10% shy of we all die so that's got to be ok, okay?
> That should be the title of every climate study going forward, shouldn't it?
This is what you want to hang your stance upon? Uniformly stupid titling?
I have decided that I should adopt a more consequentialist philosophy.
I no longer care about winning specific intellectual arguments if those wins do not make the world a better place.
Disclaimer: I still don't know how to state this best. Do you understand what I am attempting to say?
FWiW I read the seminal papers on this from the 1960s in the 1970s and have watched slow changes take place over decades. It's a long haul ongoing issue.
You may get some thoughts or find others to converse with in:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45827352
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nordhaus
as you determine who Ted Nordhaus is and where he and his group fit on the sprectrum.
I'd suggest you care less about "winning arguments" and focus more on consistently conveying a message that you can back up with exposition, listen to the positions of others, and develop your stance as your knowledge grows.