World’s oceans at record high temperature for 80 consecutive days

Post by willcipriano » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 6:35 PM UTC

flangola7 wrote: post #58

willcipriano wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But wasn't that always the case? Nope and it isn't the case now. End of the world cults are a common feature of human societies, pretty much all of them have/had them. My personal guess is that egos are so big that people can't imagine a world after them so it's easier to say the world is going to end.

Yes but climate disaster isn't a cult. There's the crazy guy who thinks Zeus is going to strike us all down and then there's the oceanographer out there with actual thermometers and log books saying hey this water is getting really damn warm. Will be the end of life on earth? Not at all. Will it be the total extinction of humans? Probably not. Will it be far more war, starvation, death, and human suffering than we ha…

Post by hutzlibu » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 6:38 PM UTC

pgeorgi wrote: post #19

hutzlibu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's about the reality that we might not have a future to offer our children." But wasn't that always the case? War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it. Btw. it seems the war made russia change its stance and some official "scientific" commitee has decided, that climate warming comes simply from radiation inside earth that follows a natural pattern. So no need to not burn coal then.…

> War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it. All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening. Compare to climate change where people actively try to sabotage stuff like renewables…

Post by magicalist » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 6:42 PM UTC

civilized wrote: post #70

spacephysics wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a bit dramatic and airing on fear mongering. Other comment responses of OP have better sources, but I do not agree the “future is at risk” because of this. I’m more inclined to closely watch geopolitical events unfold, as US hegemony becomes slowly unstable and potentially untenable. If climate change were really really as dire as some say it is, we wouldn’t be half-assing our way via renewable energie…

I do wish we could overcome our squeamishness about nuclear. Because our climate circumstances are indeed dangerous. And in my opinion, they're quite a bit more dangerous than nuclear power would be, if we committed to scaling it up with a reasonable balance of safety and cost-effectiveness. It is only expensive because we hold it to a much higher standard of safety than any other power source. And understandably so,…

Post by adonig » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 6:43 PM UTC

diordiderot wrote: post #55

adonig wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting all the responses below here go full ad hominem.

At this point he mays as well be refuting gravity

Post by aeonik » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 6:52 PM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #68

aeonik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused, what do you mean there's not going to be a future for them? No doubt there's going to be some challenges, but I thought all that carbon was in the atmosphere and oceans before it was sequestered by plants and alagae. I thought the major issue was the speed of change, but we really don't know what life is thing to do in response. According to this article, during the Cambrian, the earth was 10C hotter th…

I wouldn't characterize ocean ecosystems dying from the bottom up as "totally doable" but, sure, the resource wars probably won't kill off the entire human species.