Greenland ice sheet is close to a melting point of no return

This seems like an "attack the messenger" argument. If there is enough global heating to melt the ice sheets over Greenland - the climate would be different. 1000 years ago, the climate of the Earth was not melting the ice sheets of Greenland. Now that they are on track to melt, that is different.

I only said the climate would be changed. Beyond this, the article is very well presenting a model of what would happen to Greenland's ice sheets over centuries.

Otherwise, in my comment, I'm paraphrasing the conclusions of the article and giving explanatory examples which are based on thermodynamics and what was concluded in the article. It's not my opinion (and so making this personal is irrelevant). Otherwise you're free to contradict the validity of the model, you could have a very good research paper if you could nitpick how the article is flawed.

Otherwise, saying "the models have no idea" is either nihilistic or ignorant and is very reductive.

It's like saying, "I'm projecting my finances to go to zero in a year based on the current trajectory. Bah, why change anything, who knows what will happen a year from now!"

> It is baffling to me that it is a concern to you or frankly anyone that is not of extraordinary wealth.

- Why would the non wealthy be any less concerned about their great grand children than would be the wealthy?

- Is concern for future generations of humans and every other species on the plant baffling to you?

> Why? I tell you why: all effective measures at "reducing climate change" (very status quo) will unquestionably make life more laborious and less comfortable for the lower 98% of humanity. Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen.

That is your opinion. To share my opinion, I find that "comfortable" way of life to not be entirely satisfactory. That way of life (industrialized capitalism, eg: Japan or the USA) leads to high rates of suicide, depression, poor environment (polluted airs, roadways, rivers) to all be very unsatisfactory (IMO). I recall how clean the air became when there were no jets and no cars on the road for as little as one week, and that was quite pleasing.

You're also assuming that the needed changes are going to require _your_ personal sacrifice. If we, as normal people, can effectively adopt mass transit, electric cars; the rest of the needed changes are from industry.

> Our sacrifices will permit the 2% (or fewer) extravagance beyond what we've ever seen.

This is provided with no evidence and is not a logical conclusion from any of your previous statements. It's already the case that a minority are causing an disproportionate amount of emissions. In some ways, how is this not already the case? If that is already the case, then the "sacrifices" are not relevant to the "extravagance" of the 2% (our sacrifices are not a necessary and sufficient condition for that extravagance, the two are independent of each other given that extravagance seems to exist today without those sacrifices)

> The permafrost will melt unleashing massive forests worth of growth, huge swaths of frozen soil will become inhabitable and fertile.

I think you meant habitable? Beyond this, this seems like a disingenuous argument since you stated earlier that no model knows what the climate will be like in 200 years - therefore how can we conclude the permafrost would melt?

Though, taking the nihilism aside, permafrost melting would be another tipping point. This article describes another tipping point that also exists.

But, the growth of forests is not a given (so, it's not necessarily the case that we can all just shift north & south). For example, there is a C02 level (around 1300ppm) that could be reached that could cause cumulus clouds to no longer form [0]. At that point, we're not getting massive forests but instead earth would be on track to be a hot-house planet (eg: Venus)

> The ancestors of the Americas lived on the coast, 400 feet below today's surf. No one lamenting the old huts weve lost along the way

No, but it is lamentable that Buffalo, Wolfs, bears have nearly disappeared along with bio-diversity and a lot of first growth forests. Looking at satellite pictures, it's quite amazing how much clear cutting has taken place; and travelling through those clear cuts is depressing. I personally lament this loss.

So, just as we can lament the destruction of environment from those 400 years ago (more 200 years ago really), people 200 years in the future will lament us ruining the environment for them. We may disagree, but I prefer to be a steward of the environment rather than wreck it for the sake of marginal "comfort".

[0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...

(1) The climate models of the 1970's were actually incredibly accurate, 50 years later.

(2) We are pretty close to 2 degrees now (AFAIK we are at 1.6 currently and rising). The current models have us breaching 2 degrees in the next couple decades, if not already breached. (Any reason to believe our current models for the next 20 years are far less accurate than the models of the 1970's for a longer time scale?)

(3) We need warming of 2 degrees for up to two centuries to lock in the melting of Greenland's ice sheet.

(4) Once we breach 2 degrees, the timer starts. How likely do you think it would be that we would stop emissions to arrest that growth? How difficult would it be to even get back under 2 degrees (to then actually _lower_ the temperature).

Hence, unless we want to not only figure out a way to eliminate emissions, but also reverse those effects; we are best staying under 2 degrees. The time threshold for staying under 2 degrees is quickly passing, and that is not a problem for "hundreds of years from now". If you care at all then about your grandchildren having anything resembling the comforts of you; perhaps you would also be concerned about the implications of breaching 2 degrees and how important it is to stop that increase before we even consider how to reverse those effects.

Last point, considering it is the 2% [0] are the ones doing most of the emissions, then this concern over the change for a more laborious and less comfortable life for the 98% seems misplaced.

[0] It turns out it's actually the top 10~20 percent that do most of the emissions, with more from the smaller fraction. The point is all the same though.