@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

Your video, How Dangerous Can Ocean Waves Get? Wave Comparison, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Reading closely, it has the potential to be beneficial in certain ways, but there's no guarantee any of the infant coral it brings will be able to establish themselves.

I keep wondering what it's going to do to beach ecosystems in the area. I'm sure it's going to be bad for tourism, and could be horrible for fish. I hope someone is studying what it's done to the ocean chemistry.

Diatoms, and other phytoplankton, are incredibly sensitive to ocean PH and CO2 levels. This can be another feedback loop already in action.
As fewer diatoms photosynthesize, more CO2 goes unused, raising the concentration, lowering the numbers and health of phytoplankton, allowing more CO2 to go unused, raising the concentration, .....
Every molecule of CO2 added to ocean systems removes one molecule of carbonate, which is necessary for the uptake of iron among other processes. By 2100, surface carbonate is expected to decrease by up to 50%. That may well be below the levels diatoms can tolerate.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/key-biological-mechanism-disrupted-ocean-acidification

If phytoplankton goes, so does the food web. They are the base. If the ocean food web collapses, eventually the bacteria that eat dead sea life will create huge clouds of hydrogen sulfide that cover the land, poisoning any still living organisms there. This has happened before, but on a much longer timescale, with near life ending results for earth.

Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction. ... "During the end-Permian extinction 95 percent of all species (and >98% of all biomass) on Earth became extinct, compared to only 75 percent during the KT when the dinosaurs disappeared,"

A better title might be "diatoms, the tiny glass shards that support all life on earth, are struggling".

Actually, it's both.
If you watched carefully, they explained how erosion was lowering the land height at the same time the water is rising. That erosion is happening much faster than the ocean rises.

Venice is flooding.

Here, Bob.
I've got that super cheap ocean front property that you said doesn't exist, for you. Put your money where your mouth is and buy your own low lying island.
Astonishing the lengths these frauds have gone to in order to sell the liberal agenda. Eroding their own homes and removing long established islands just to get on the climate change bandwagon....right? These people are really committed to the lie. Take advantage and buy some beach front property....or do you not believe what you spout?

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Is-Erasing-Large-Island-Chains

I see these videos and wonder why this hasn't been in a "mission impossible" or "Ocean's 16" type movie...then I realize it's because it looks like badly done, totally unrealistic effects, no one would ever believe a human or RC helicopter could do that without seeing it in person.

I'll interject.

I accept your challenge.

1) Do you believe love is all you need?

2) Are you aware who the undercover agents are?

3) What do you know about acting?

Can you crack this code?

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home*

GILLIAN: What you're hearing is recorded whale song. It is sung by the male. He'll sing anywhere from six to as long as thirty minutes, and then, start again. In the ocean, the other whales will pick up the song, and pass it on.

(Spock is seen swimming in the underwater tank)

GILLIAN: The songs change every year, but we still don't know what purpose they serve. Are they some kind of navigational signal? Could they be part of the mating ritual? Or is it pure communication beyond our comprehension? Frankly we just don't know.

--------------------------------------------

Hey you, out there in the cold
Getting lonely, getting old
Can you feel me?
Hey you, standing in the aisles
With itchy feet and fading smiles
Can you feel me?
Hey you, don't help them to bury the light
Don't give in without a fight
Hey you out there on your own
Sitting naked by the phone
Would you touch me?
Hey you with you ear against the wall
Waiting for someone to call out
Would you touch me?
Hey you, would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I'm coming home*
But it was only fantasy
The wall was too high
As you can see
No matter how he tried
He could not break free
And the worms ate into his brain
Hey you, out there on the road
Always doing what you're told
Can you help me?
Hey you, out there beyond the wall
Breaking bottles in the hall
Can you help me?

Hey you, don't tell me there's no hope at all
Together we stand, divided we fall

Songwriters: Roger Waters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymgYEQgSqLI

Both.

Just like on my honeymoon, sitting ocean side at sunset eating honeydew sorbet, my wife said "it just doesn't get better than this", so I said "that means it's all downhill from here."

"In the next few decades"?! More like "a few decades ago".
Perhaps if we had started population control in the 80's with the goal of cutting global population in half by 2000 AND did the rest of what he suggests we might have a chance...we did not.

By the time we understood there was a problem there were less than a few decades left to solve it...that was around 40 years ago, and we've done everything possible to accelerate the damage we do on every front since then.

Ocean acidification is happening today, it's getting worse, it's slow to react to change so will continue to get worse even if humans disappeared tomorrow, it has built in feedback loops that have been triggered like melting methanehydrates and sequestered CO2 that are being released faster every single day, and we are increasing the man made causes every year. There is a point where it reaches critical acidification, the point where diatoms can't form their skeletons, and then the entire ocean system dies. That's far worse than the apocalypse it sounds like, not just because 50-60% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, but also because the rotting biomass creates huge amounts of not just more methane, compounding the greenhouse problem and further acidifying the oceans, but also immense amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which spread as huge poisonous clouds around the globe.
We are on our way to a man made Permian extinction, when >95% of all species went extinct and near 99% of all biomass was lost. We will not survive it as a species....and we don't deserve to.

Oh Bob....you don't even know what the word "disproving" means, do you?

This twaddle only disproves the notion that you can discern actual information from snidely delivered propaganda.
He is right about one thing, he's not a scientist, he's a comedian who's jokes aren't funny, just like he says. He's not a journalist however, he's likely hoping he can be an internet opinion influencer.
America Uncovered....a spin off of the insane China Uncensored channel, dedicated to China bashing.

This new smattering of random right wing YouTube videos are not "proof" of anything but your bias and willingness to repeat nonsense you enjoy but don't understand.

Put your money where your mouth is, go buy some cheap ocean front property in Miami Dade or the Keys, and don't worry about the fact you can't get flood or hurricane insurance, those are leftie hoaxes and nothing to worry about. You're really going to show us! Odd that those properties are losing value with all those smart rich right wing investors fighting over them, isn't it?

The ocean is getting louder because more people are dropping their cell phones overboard on cruise ships. No one can tell me different.

Why the ocean is getting louder
At 4:00 mark it talks about Seismic airguns . It indicate its about as loud as an jet take off and all the fish leave the area.

Oh HELL no. Anyone who accepts her endorsement or worse, her "help" should be run out of the election immediately, don't pass go, don't collect $200. Go away Hillary, you already cost us 4 years of Trump, if you do it again you deserve the lynching you'll receive from his base.

Like many ideas that might have saved the planet, they only stood a chance of working if you removed any choice.
Since that's not the norm in most places, I've understood we are doomed almost since I first heard of over population exceeding the sustainable food production levels, then along came global warming and ocean acidification. I understand that most people today are not capable of long term responsibility....making decisions based on how they effect their great grandchildren. It only took one century of living for today to set up a situation that threatens to destroy the planet. I see less than no hope of staving off disaster, instead of even trying we're firing all rockets at 110% to speed up the process and arguing over possibly turning down the thermostat next year.