51–59 of 59 posts
What confusing maps! Blue ice and white water. There's a clearer map of the actual journey here (along with way more technical info): https://eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/m/mosai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But humans can currently live in vastly different climates on the earth already. Unless something happens way outside of the worst case climate change models, we’re just not looking at anything near an extinction level event for humans. The big island of Hawaii alone has enough population to not suffer genetic inbreeding problems and it’s mountains mean it can handle multiple meters of sea level rise. The entire rest…
The worst case scenario is the oceans shift to a eutrophic ecosystem https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802792/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At our current rate humans won’t face extinction for thousands of years. We don’t need a biosphere to live in a 5C warmer planet. What will happen is likely massive unrest and famine due to crop shortages leading to a significant population decline. But we can lose 80% of the population and barely be set back 1-2 centuries.
Aside from probably being plain wrong, this sort of thinking is also a germ for boundless evil; from saying "we can lose 80% of the population..." to saying "we should lose 80% of the population so things will be better for the other 20%" and then "let's do something to lose that useless 80% so that ours will be the 20%" is all too small a step.
There is no scientific evidence for climate change being an extinction event for humans so there is no substance backing your “probably wrong” statement.
if the lie of global catastrophic weather change is helpful in yolking mankind together, than so be it. but i prefer to appreciate the history of mankind as being an endeavor of seeking truth even when we know truth is relative. And thus, attempting to pull mankind together with a single giant lie, whether it be an afterlife, a god head, or fear of a fire demon such as old man summer conquering old man winter, we are likely to be run asunder if we rely on a lie to unite us.
as a student of the jewish path, and many other paths, i find that this particular demon or 'baal' , the one of 'climatapocalypse' is unlikely to withstand even the briefest test of time. in 2 generations, at most, this demon will likely be forgotten as just some other random god offered sacrfice and attention at the altar of human effort.
humanity must find a path forwards, one with some profound measure of relativistic truth in it, but this doens't mean shallow lies , lies , of course, containing some measure of truth, will unite us. they won't. study humanity. you will see the patterns are about as slow as the ice ages themselves. after all, we've only been around for 200,000 years in our possibly entirely modern forms. and only 11,000 years with agriculture and recorded traces of writing. alas, how do we emerge from this , that is a much bigger question. will we have a chrysalis? if 'climate change' is part of it, that's not bad, but it would still be surprising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no point in engaging with outgroups that operate in bad faith. We are at the point in the climate crisis in which “shame on you” is an appropriate response to climate deniers and bad faith actors.
Perhaps we are. But don't do it on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from probably being plain wrong, this sort of thinking is also a germ for boundless evil; from saying "we can lose 80% of the population..." to saying "we should lose 80% of the population so things will be better for the other 20%" and then "let's do something to lose that useless 80% so that ours will be the 20%" is all too small a step.
FFS it’s just a simple refutation of the “human extinction” bullshit. It’s horrific enough without making shit up. There is no scientific evidence for climate change being an extinction event for humans so there is no substance backing your “probably wrong” statement.
Anyway, even if "human extinction" is unscientific, the rest of your comment is rather even less scientific than that. Let me see now...
1) "We don’t need a biosphere to live in a 5C warmer planet."
What scientific evidence is there that we can survive without a biosphere (regardless of temperature for a moment)? I know! We'll do it just like the Martian colonists did it. Oh, wait! (facepalm) Or are you saying that a 5C warmer planet will making living easier, because somehow agriculture will work better when it's warmer even without the "natural" biosphere? It's a bit hard to understand what you really meant with that statement, but I'm pretty sure nobody who studies agriculture or ecology would agree with that statement any way you parse it. So: unscientific, I'm afraid.
2) "we can lose 80% of the population and barely be set back 1-2 centuries."
Oh, so that's what happened last time we lost 80% of the population? Oh, wait! (facepalm again) Seriously, if you want a scientific, or at least scholarly take on that question, read Joseph Tainter's "The collapse of complex societies"... sometimes when societies collapse they settle on a lower level of complexity, but other times they just disappear. Also, there simply is no such thing as just being set back 1-2 centuries... we no longer have the technology of the 19th century and it's nowhere nearly as easy to recreate as you might think. And we no longer have the same resources; in your scenario fossil fuels would be gone, at least those that can be accessed with 19th century technology, and that 19th century technology ran on coal. Go back to wood and charcoal and you have to go back more centuries, too.
3) "massive unrest and famine due to crop shortages leading to a significant population decline"
There's another problem with this... you know what usually happens when you have massive unrest and famine? Especially when some of those people who are starving happen to be heavily armed? I'll give you a hint... they don't just starve to death quietly. Again, there are quite a few illustrative examples from past civilizations in Tainter's book. Human extinction may have war as its proximate cause and still be due to global warming at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the season, in summer with 24/7 sunlight the Arctic takes more heat than a location near the equator.
Apparently the Arctic gets more insolation than the Antarctic, but the former only peaks at about 25% higher than the Equatorial mean, and the peak is relatively short.[1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci...