The Earth is about to become Venus 2.0

[May90]

"About" - as in "in a few billion years"?

[Cerus]

Yeah, because we haven't found a solution for that.

You think we can somehow make all the worlds plants magically tolerant to extreme temperatures that they were never meant to endure?

- - - Updated - - -

When you say "about to become" you will sound like you mean within some meaningful timeframe.

Small human mind thinking. A few millions years or even a billion is a blink of the eye in universe terms.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Or galaxy is 13 billion years old and the universe is over 14 billion years old. The universe was out there creating life nearly 10 billion years before earth was even a planet. Hell - a billion years went by before our galaxy even formed and billions more went by before humans even existed on earth.

[Mitters]

Ill be dead before anything big happens, why should I care?

[Forogil]

You think we can somehow make all the worlds plants magically tolerant to extreme temperatures that they were never meant to endure?

Yes, a few degrees hotter are possible. The simplest solution for most regions is to just take plants from hotter regions - as is already happening; and the additional CO2 actually helps the plants. The slight problem is that we get a few more tropical diseases as well that way (and a few other problems with global warning).

Even extreme scenarios of 10 degrees seems doable, and actually Venus-conditions will not happen due to humans.

Small human mind thinking. A few millions years or even a billion is a blink of the eye in universe terms.

Yes, unless humans interfere then in half a billion years earth will become to hot and run out of CO2 for plants; and we will die.

[Orlong]

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...co2-threshold/

Global Warming and its similar effects are a threat people and yet you continue to ignore it.

Who in the hell cares what happens in 2100. 99% of us will be dead by then anyway

- - - Updated - - -

>Ignores the fact that these changes caused mass extinctions

Not of Humans. We are still here, Who cares if certain animals die out. Would we really be better off today if we had Wooly Mammoths and Sabretooth Tigers roaming around?

- - - Updated - - -

>Ignores the fact that these changes caused mass extinctions

Not of Humans. We are still here, Who cares if certain animals die out. Would we really be better off today if we had Wooly Mammoths and Sabretooth Tigers roaming around?

- - - Updated - - -

The only people "debating" the bolded are the ones with a huge vested interest in it being false. The people actually qualified to answer the question, re: scientists of various fields, settled the question handily decades ago.

Also, because there is never a bad time for XKCD:

Early chart - Later chart

Scientists who have a vested interest to come to that conclusion or lose their funding. There are many scientists that say the opposite as well, but are immediately dismissed as kooks and their research isnt even read

[Orlong]

So what?

So what if a significant percentage of humans live on coastlands that will be underwater if we don't do anything about it. So what if they have to all migrate at once.

They can start moving now if they believe they will be washed away 200 years from now. No need to wait until its an emergency

[stomination]

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...co2-threshold/

Global Warming and its similar effects are a threat people and yet you continue to ignore it.

I'll be dead for a few centuries.

[Orlong]

If you're wondering why some people don't get with the times on global warming, look no further than the hyperbole in the title.

We don't need that shit. It's not helpful. Seriously.

- - - Updated - - -



There are definitely a lot of self inflicted wounds with nuclear.

Ideally what we want is a national dialogue about what to do, instead of whether or not there's even a problem. There are proposed solutions all around, but people aren't interested in a solution to a problem they don't believe exists. That's why there's such a heavy focus on getting people to accept the reality. Because only then can we have both sides work together to make solutions, instead of one side simultaneously doubt the existence of a problem and demand the other side come up with better solutions for the supposedly nonexistent problem.

OR it could be because we dont want to sacrifice our nice lifestyles by using inferior "environmentally friendly" product replacements that cost more money, to combat something that even if we could stop, none of us currently alive will suffer. Its more of a discussion of whther we want to live in a "takes a village" society like Europe believes, or an "every man for himself" society like the US

[micwini]

Climate always changes, it just happens to get warmer now. In a lot of years it will be gradually getting colder again.

[Polyxo]

Climate always changes, it just happens to get warmer now. In a lot of years it will be gradually getting colder again.

It's actually supposed to be getting colder for 25,000 and change years.

[Trassk]

>Ignores the fact that these changes caused mass extinctions

Maybe it's time for the earth to have its own culling, freshen the air a bit and have newer more interesting species come from the aftermath.

[The One Percent]

Much like overpopulation, it will only be acknowledged when the problem is so bad it takes extreme measures or is too late entirely to fix.

[Orlong]

Here's the IPCC's latest report regarding the state of the physical science backing climate change; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

All your (reasonable) questions would be answered, if you bothered to read it, if you're ACTUALLY interested in the facts, rather than spouting some absurd conspiracy theory. If that's your thing, you may as well also get worried about chemtrails and mole people.

I dont believe a single thing the IPCC or any UN body has to say. They are all politically and financially motivated to provide results that affect GDP for the major countries. Lets get some results from nonbiased sources. There have been numerous studies that show the IPCC uses algorithms and estimated temperature recordings (as well as temperature recordings that governments send them that may or may not be true for their conclusions

[Torgent]

I'm fairly certain any temperature changes are negligible compared to all the fishin', shootin' and general polluting we're doing.

You'd be incredibly wrong, but that's okay.

[Orlong]

And before someone says it (because someone always does), the lack of debate is because of how certain we are that this is reality. We don't "debate" gravity, or the heliocentric model of the solar system, either; those are obvious truths. The precise mechanics of such are always up for discussion, if you have new information. That's science.

Gravity and the heliocentric model of the solar system can be visably seen and understood by the average person as well so its obvious. CLimate change isnt easily understood and seen by the average person and the average person isnt likely to believe BS spouted to them by some politically motivated scientist about something they cant observe on their own

[Deleted]

None of the poll options describes me. But I have always thought that regardless of whether human actions have an effect on the climate or not (the Sun's activity has an even greater impact), it would be foolishness to pollute the atmposphere any more than what's strictly necessary. Hence I support nuclear energy -- both improving the efficiency of fission energy, and the developement of fusion energy. No other power source can reliably fill mankind's growing need for energy.

[Elegiac]

Gravity and the heliocentric model of the solar system can be visably seen and understood by the average person as well so its obvious. CLimate change isnt easily understood and seen by the average person and the average person isnt likely to believe BS spouted to them by some politically motivated scientist about something they cant observe on their own

Which speaks more to the illiteracy of the 'average person' than the validity of anthropogenic climate change.

[Bugs]

Why make a topic, and not have the balls to reply to people?

[Cerus]

Who in the hell cares what happens in 2100. 99% of us will be dead by then anyway

- - - Updated - - -



Not of Humans. We are still here, Who cares if certain animals die out. Would we really be better off today if we had Wooly Mammoths and Sabretooth Tigers roaming around?

- - - Updated - - -



Not of Humans. We are still here, Who cares if certain animals die out. Would we really be better off today if we had Wooly Mammoths and Sabretooth Tigers roaming around?

- - - Updated - - -



Scientists who have a vested interest to come to that conclusion or lose their funding. There are many scientists that say the opposite as well, but are immediately dismissed as kooks and their research isnt even read

Hey look - the typical humans are the only important species argument. Humans need earth. Earth doesn't need humans. We're a destructive species that does not live in balance with the planet we need to survive on.

Extinction of any non human species is a bad thing. Nature has changed the balance before and will do so again.

[Rennadrel]

Earth was nearly 10 degrees warmer half a billion years ago than today, and ice ages weren't really a thing until ~35 million years ago, after which we've had several.

So what if it gets a few degrees warmer? Earth will survive, some areas currently hospitable may become less so while other areas will become more so. There's plenty of room in Siberia and Canada, we'll adapt.

No! You scrubs get your own cold hell holes, it's not Canada's fault that California has been burning itself to a crisp the last several years.