281–290 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#1 is very real #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved by human ingenuity I have a more positive outlook. :)
One person can make one command decision and make #2 a reality. That's all it takes. No matter how many people drool over AGI the bandwidth and processing just isn't there. We barely have control systems as intelligent as a bacterium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's really been such a long period of time that if runaway climate change were going to happen, why hasn't it happened already? I don't think runaway climate change or even something like a reversal of the Gulf Stream were ever any of the mainstream scenarios from IPCC. The worst scenarios, IIRC, were a global warming of +6 to 10C. And that is over several centuries, provided we do nothing to stop it. This cent…
At 4C of heating, you cannot grow food in any reasonable quantity with any reliability, period. 4C is the collapse of modern civilization at the very least (in fact likely earlier due to increased geopolitical instability and tensions due to dwindling resources, combined with the availability of nuclear weapons), with a massive die-off of humans along with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite the IPCC being very conservative/optimistic in their scenarios, this is in fact in line with their reports; admittedly my comment above might be badly worded - when I said "near-term", I meant "in the upcoming two centuries or so". The IPCC reports say we might reach 4C, 5C or even more; based on the historical record, such a major change in such a short time - several orders of magnitude faster than previous…
There is lots of space on earth that would be a lot more hospitable to humans if 5C warmer. Like the central eurasian steppe.
Not to mention, at +5C it is all but certain shallow methane hydrate deposits (those stabilized by temperature, not pressure) all over the world are now outgassing CH4; not to mention several other similar tripwires, and likely not all of which we've even identified.
Edit: I can't seem to be able to reply to your comment below, not sure why. You're absolutely wrong about those Siberia figures, and they're not supported by current scientific consensus.
We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is lots of space on earth that would be a lot more hospitable to humans if 5C warmer. Like the central eurasian steppe.
You can't grow food for a large population when average planetary temps are at +5C. It doesn't mean it's locally always +5C warmer than it used to be; it means you're seeing insane temperature swings in a matter of days, constantly - in both directions, it just so happens that the average is +5C. Not to mention, at +5C it is all but certain shallow methane hydrate deposits (those stabilized by temperature, not pressu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 4C of heating, you cannot grow food in any reasonable quantity with any reliability, period. 4C is the collapse of modern civilization at the very least (in fact likely earlier due to increased geopolitical instability and tensions due to dwindling resources, combined with the availability of nuclear weapons), with a massive die-off of humans along with it.
Many places could increase food production to twice what it is today if 5C warmer.
At +5C, there is no growing food in any substantial amount outside of high tech, low yield approaches; approaches that depend on complex planetary supply chains (both for initial deployment and maintenance), which will have disappeared by then.
With each new IPCC report the chances of us keeping global warming below 1.5 C become more and more remote as emissions are locked in. But at the same time the really bad scenarios where we go well over 4 C also become more remote. Every half degree is worse than the last and each is worth righting for but it does look like our civilization will make it through this intact, even if not all people individually.
>it does look like our civilization will make it through this intact Has anybody ever seriously believed that we wouldn't make it through? This just seems like an alarmist take to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I'm with you, the multinational corporations are a major culprit in this.
It's the consumers first and foremost. The multinationals are just doing what's in their best interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#1 is very real #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved by human ingenuity I have a more positive outlook. :)
> #3 will be solved by human ingenuity It already started, billions of dollars in losses, with no real solution in sight.
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
Seems like we're moving directly and rapidly towards a real solution. Perhaps not rapidly enough, but the only way to change that is billions more in "losses"