Climate is Changing, but Should we do Anything?

[zEmini]

Recycle, reduce and reuse. That is about all you reasonably can do.

If you can afford to buy a new car (hybrid, electric, telsa) that would be the next step.

The planet is fucked with future extreme weather regardless.

[Endus]

How is that so, considering climate drastically oscillates every few 10k~100k years? You can't adapt for a million years to an environment that changes 10~20 times in that time.

But yes, drastic changes bring drastic results, very specialized species disappear, others take its place.

Even if they overstated things somewhat, it bears pointing out that the geologically lightning-fast warming at the start of an interglacial period (like the one we're in now, ending the glacial period beforehand) takes thousands of years. If anthropogenic warming isn't checked, we'll match similar warming in a matter of a few centuries, and we'll be doing so near the peak of an interglacial warm period; this could kick us out of the ice age cycle entirely and return us to a climate balance that hasn't been seen in millions of years.

The climate will fix itself, the earth is going to heat up and then the natural cooling proccess will begin. The new iceage comes after the globe warms up enough for percipitation to create worldwide cloud and weather systems thick enough to block out the harshness of the sun and cool the earth. This will create snow storms all over the planet and freeze the oceans. This will also cause new poles to form and over time lower the sea level. Somewhere in that whole proccess the human species all but dies out because we were not doing anything about it and are launched back into the stoneage.

That's not how it goes, at all. Particularly since you're relying on natural trends that cool the planet over tens of thousands of years to counteract human-based factors that will warm it in centuries.

[Jeezy911]

"Climate is Changing, but CAN we do Anything?"

Fixed the headline

[Uoyredrum]

Well we should've done something, but a mix of apathy and climate change deniers basically fucked us. Probably won't matter so much for us, but our kids and grandkids are probably screwed. Hopefully they're able to figure out how to terraform and colonize other planets by then.

[zEmini]

There is one good thing coming out of climate change and that is innovation.

A comfortable and lazy society doesn't advance.

[Unholyground]

Even if they overstated things somewhat, it bears pointing out that the geologically lightning-fast warming at the start of an interglacial period (like the one we're in now, ending the glacial period beforehand) takes thousands of years. If anthropogenic warming isn't checked, we'll match similar warming in a matter of a few centuries, and we'll be doing so near the peak of an interglacial warm period; this could kick us out of the ice age cycle entirely and return us to a climate balance that hasn't been seen in millions of years.



That's not how it goes, at all. Particularly since you're relying on natural trends that cool the planet over tens of thousands of years to counteract human-based factors that will warm it in centuries.

The proccess is the same regardless. We are just speeding it up. Yes the proccess I described is how the cycle works but our lack of intervention is going to change the impact it has on the planet and possibly change the the warming and cooling proccess altogether.

[nanook12]

Ah Nanook12. The Edgemaster. The Master of Edge. The Lord of Edge.

One week he's an Anarcho-Communist, next week he is a quasi Nietzchean social darwinist, next week he is a libertarian Sovereign citizen, then a Bushperson.

Today is pseudo militaristic mass murdering THE POWER OF ENGINEERING IN A SAVAGE WORLD whateveritist.

I can't keep track of which edge he is on now. As long as it's SUPER EDGY!

Honestly and genuinely lol'ed. I like you.

[Endus]

The proccess is the same regardless. We are just speeding it up. Yes the proccess I described is how the cycle works but our lack of intervention is going to change the impact it has on the planet and possibly change the the warming and cooling proccess altogether.

This is like saying that it's no big deal if a skyscraper-sized asteroid hits the Earth, because smaller meteorites hit the Earth every day. It doesn't make sense. Scale and rate of change are absolutely critical.

And no; the cycle does not function solely as you described. There's a lot more complexity to it, such as precessional changes in the Earth's orbit and the like. And it's a silly point to make, because the cycle you describe is not a permanent feature, and there's a strong likelihood that human emissions will kick us out of that cycle permanently.

[Rooflesstoofless]

More days surfing in warmer waters and a culling of birth rates in third world countries. I like where this is going.

[PC2]

The planet is fucked with future extreme weather regardless.

The planet is not fucked. "Extreme weather" isn't even a real metric. The real metrics show incremental changes that have a boundary which prevents doomsday scenarios like in the Day After Tomorrow and Waterworld. The runaway greenhouse effect similar to Venus is another one that cant happen with Earth's composition.

[Sunseeker]

The larger problem is that conditions will become more and more adverse to growing food. So, growing population+reduced food output=problems.

[barackohmama]

overpopulation => pollution => Bad weather => more disease => less people => better weather

[Revi]

Oh yes, who needs stable eco-systems and dry land, we humans are totally independent of the planet we live on.

[Independent voter]

If we replaced our coal fired power plants in the US with nuclear plants we could reduce our green house emissions by 20% or so. And since the US is a huge power consumer 20% is a big deal, you'd actually see a dip in the graph.

[Grimreaper]

I believe the correct question would be: Can we do anything?

Because really, even if all human made emissions would stop overnight, ALL of it. It would just barely have any effect, if at all. I mean, a volcano erupting and spewing out shit for just 24 hours is more harmfull to the planet than what all of humanity have done over the last 2000 years combined. Shouldnt we rather look into ways of sealing a volcano once it erupts, rather than scamming people into buying electric cars?

Oh wait, i already know the answer to that question: Greed...

[Machismo]

I believe the correct question would be: Can we do anything?

Because really, even if all human made emissions would stop overnight, ALL of it. It would just barely have any effect, if at all. I mean, a volcano erupting and spewing out shit for just 24 hours is more harmfull to the planet than what all of humanity have done over the last 2000 years combined. Shouldnt we rather look into ways of sealing a volcano once it erupts, rather than scamming people into buying electric cars?

Oh wait, i already know the answer to that question: Greed...

Can you cite a source to back up that claim. From wheat I'm seeing, that is simply not the case:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/vol...al-warming.htm

[Endus]

I believe the correct question would be: Can we do anything?

Because really, even if all human made emissions would stop overnight, ALL of it. It would just barely have any effect, if at all. I mean, a volcano erupting and spewing out shit for just 24 hours is more harmfull to the planet than what all of humanity have done over the last 2000 years combined. Shouldnt we rather look into ways of sealing a volcano once it erupts, rather than scamming people into buying electric cars?

Oh wait, i already know the answer to that question: Greed...

Seriously, it's kind of shocking how widespread these completely wrongheaded and counterfactual denier memes have gotten.

No, human emissions absolutely dwarf volcanic emissions.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#37fb41b35cbf

It's not even close. Human emissions are 60-100x that of volcanic emissions, depending on how you measure (it's complicated because you can look at straight CO2, or try and also cover the effect ash and dust has, which produces a cooling effect). The really big volcanoes, when they go off, might catch up volcanic emissions to human emissions for a few days, but they don't last long, and it has a negligible effect on overall volcanic emissions.

So no. You're repeating a malicious lie that deniers literally made up to try and hide the facts. Volcanoes aren't even close to the problem that human emissions are.

[zEmini]

The planet is not fucked. "Extreme weather" isn't even a real metric. The real metrics show incremental changes that have a boundary which prevents doomsday scenarios like in the Day After Tomorrow and Waterworld. The runaway greenhouse effect similar to Venus is another one that cant happen with Earth's composition.

Extreme weather doens't mean those stupid movies. Just places that are hot will become hotter and places that are cold will be colder. Basically creation of more desert like habitats.

[PC2]

Extreme weather doens't mean those stupid movies. Just places that are hot will become hotter and places that are cold will be colder. Basically creation of more desert like habitats.

There's no reason to believe there will be major desertification, such as a doubling in surface area. Lets say that the percent of Earths surface that is a desert expands by 10% due to a warmer atmosphere. There will also be other regions that get more precipitation which can then be used for civilization. Some places will lose out more due to environmental forces, but civilization has always been like that.

[Endus]

There's no reason to believe there will be major desertification, such as a doubling in surface area. Lets say that the percent of Earths surface that is a desert expands by 10% due to a warmer atmosphere. There will also be other regions that get more precipitation which can then be used for civilization. Some places will lose out more due to environmental forces, but civilization has always been like that.

By way of example, just outside of the span of recorded history, the entire Sahara was verdant grasslands, not desert. The Fertile Crescent in the Middle East used to be exactly that, not the desert it is today. While those changes took centuries, we're vastly increasing the rapidity of the climate shifts, and that gives regions even less time to adjust or adapt. In the natural course, grasslands will build up soils, and trees generally move in once there's enough soil to support them, creating forests, if conditions are otherwise right. When the changes happen too rapidly, however, that soil never gets a chance to develop. Rather than a slow increase in precipitation that encourages vegetative growth, which builds soil and locks that soil in place with the roots they develop, you get a rapid increase in precipitation, which scours off what shallow soil there is and washes it into the rivers. You can see this in the short form with the flash-flooding that occurs in dry areas; that's a relatively rare occurrence due to the general aridity, but the reason you get the flash flood is that there's no soil to absorb the precipitation, so it all rushes into the riverbeds, and floods the area downstream, scouring the riverbed as it goes. There may be a brief burst of life in the immediate aftermath, but in general, it's a destructive process.

Again, what is completely ignored by folks like yourself is the rapidity of these changes. That matters, in a very big way.