Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Well, honestly, the shocking part is that we're doing nothing about it.
    Eh, even that's not shocking when you consider the fact the world is currently run by people who expect to be dead before anything starts affecting them. A depressingly large number of people subscribe to the "I won't be around so why should I care" method of viewing the world's sustainability, and many of those kinds of people are in government.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    A completely different climate.

    One which allowed for seagull-sized dragonflies. Which would choke to death, if you yanked one forward to today, because it literally could not breathe in our current atmosphere.

    These kinds of comparisons between wildly different climate balance points are useless. Nobody's suggesting that climate change will kill all life. We're pointing out that we, as a species, and all the species we rely on to survive, are all optimized for this stable climate. Changing that as rapidly as unchecked anthropogenic emissions will cause will lead to mass extinctions. Humanity may not survive, and if we do, we'll almost certainly be far fewer in number, and our global civilization will have collapsed. Some of us would rather avoid that, even if some species will survive the change.
    Fair enough.
    However, 3 million or 12 million years ago (when it was +4 deg C) is a really short time considering Earth's age. Yet it still happened, without humans existing.
    Although I am not convinced about current warming (which is a fact) being entirely (or even predominantly) man-made, I also don't think it will have any effect on the future of humankind in the grandest of schemes.
    You're laying it out like reducing the emissions to 0 will let us survive forever. I on the other hand am convinced that regardless of emissions efforts we will disappear anyway, and it will be for entirely different reasons than CO2. The global reserves of coal/oil/gas are projected to last for ~60 years last I checked. That's not even the end of the century, so approximately a 3 deg C rise?
    Climate is not what is going to wipe humanity out.

  3. #163
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    57,653
    Quote Originally Posted by stevenho View Post
    Fair enough.
    However, 3 million or 12 million years ago (when it was +4 deg C) is a really short time considering Earth's age. Yet it still happened, without humans existing.
    Not at anything remotely close to the rate of current warming. The glacial-interglacial cycle we've been in for a few million years (the whole thing is an "ice age"; that means there's permanent ice at the poles) involves geologically rapid warming at the onset of interglacial periods (we're at the warm peak of one, currently), but that fastest natural warming is about 1/10th as fast as our current rate, and our rate of warming has been accelerating. It's expected that we'll hit a rate that's 20x faster than that "rapid" interglacial warming due to natural causes, before we can maybe get a handle on this.

    You can't compare warming that takes place over 5,000-8,000 years to warming that's expected to take place over a couple centuries and pretend they're the same deal. Just for one example, there's this thing in biology about how far a species can propagate over a length of time; plants are often pretty slow, unless their seeds can travel long distances. Same for fungal spores, and things like corals, especially the latter given the narrow range they can survive within. They can cope with natural warming rates, given the speed of change. Many species won't be able to survive the rapid warming we're experiencing. They'll simply not be able to adjust their range quickly enough, and they'll die out as a result.

    You're laying it out like reducing the emissions to 0 will let us survive forever. I on the other hand am convinced that regardless of emissions efforts we will disappear anyway, and it will be for entirely different reasons than CO2. The global reserves of coal/oil/gas are projected to last for ~60 years last I checked. That's not even the end of the century, so approximately a 3 deg C rise?
    Climate is not what is going to wipe humanity out.
    That's pretty much a completely different discussion. It's unlikely the human species will survive "forever"; if nothing else, we'll likely evolve into something "other" in time. But there's no reason to just let it happen, which is essentially what you're suggesting.

    Also, fossil fuel reserves are not some kind of necessity. Humanity did just fine for the first 200,000 or so years before we started to capitalize on that resource. That's an issue for survival of our current technological paradigm, not the human species. And it also isn't an argument that our paradigm will collapse; our society used to be based on horses, before shifting to fossil fuels. We just need something better to shift to.

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/c...te-change.html




    Some pretty alarming news. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Atlantic Ocean Current:

    Atlantic Ocean Current Slows Down To 1,000-Year Low, Studies Show
    https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/60224...w-studies-show
    1.) Just some immediate observations, it appears their has been a steady incline despite countries becoming much more cleaner and producing much less green house gasses. That's not to say we don't produce a lot already but the trend looks pretty steady.


    2.) If we were to go by the graph here, it would seem that globally, we need to return to a carbon output period prior to 1940's for shallow temperatures and somewhere in the mid 90s for deep water?


    3.) Without even reading the NPR article, it is impossible to know how fast the ocean currents were traveling a 1000 years ago, therefore I wouldn't waste my time on pseudo-science opinion articles.



    Interesting to say the least, but nothing that I would say is really shocking

  5. #165
    The Patient Ragu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lone Oak, TX
    Posts
    328
    The real question is how we can blame this on Dromble Drumblfumpf.

  6. #166

  7. #167
    I think we should expand self-defense laws to people who vote for political parties who ignore and want to contribute towards climate change.

    I mean, if a guy votes republican, he is voting against mitigating climate change. This way, he is basically trying to murder me and my family and I should have the legal right to defend myself and my family from him.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiza-Chan View Post
    I think we should expand self-defense laws to people who vote for political parties who ignore and want to contribute towards climate change.

    I mean, if a guy votes republican, he is voting against mitigating climate change. This way, he is basically trying to murder me and my family and I should have the legal right to defend myself and my family from him.
    That's probably correct, if you mean you want to kill him and his family slowly over a couple of centuries. But then giving them a papercut every day is more like torture, not murder.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxos View Post
    When you play the game of MMOs, you win or you go f2p.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Airlick View Post
    That's probably correct, if you mean you want to kill him and his family slowly over a couple of centuries. But then giving them a papercut every day is more like torture, not murder.
    This is not how self-defense works. If somebody tries to kidnap me and my family to slowly murder us, I am allowed to kill this person in self-defense. Why can't I kill a republican in self-defense?

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You can't compare warming that takes place over 5,000-8,000 years to warming that's expected to take place over a couple centuries and pretend they're the same deal. Just for one example, there's this thing in biology about how far a species can propagate over a length of time; plants are often pretty slow, unless their seeds can travel long distances. Same for fungal spores, and things like corals, especially the latter given the narrow range they can survive within. They can cope with natural warming rates, given the speed of change. Many species won't be able to survive the rapid warming we're experiencing. They'll simply not be able to adjust their range quickly enough, and they'll die out as a result.
    Sounds bad, then again 99% of species that lived on Earth are already extinct, and human activities outside of anything related to climate change have been wiping out species "daily" for decades if not centuries. Sounds unfair to single out emissions

    Also, fossil fuel reserves are not some kind of necessity. Humanity did just fine for the first 200,000 or so years before we started to capitalize on that resource. That's an issue for survival of our current technological paradigm, not the human species. And it also isn't an argument that our paradigm will collapse; our society used to be based on horses, before shifting to fossil fuels. We just need something better to shift to.
    What I would like the scientists to tell me is how much will the predicted temps rise at the end of predicted fossil fuel supply.
    Is it possible that it will be less or equal to the usual hot period over millions of years and while it may happen faster this time, it will have no effect on the planet in the long run? Some coral or fungus species dying is certainly not something we should celebrate, but is it really the end of the world it is being painted as?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •