6 ms·

For thousands of years, soothsayers and prophets have predicted the end of the world. Kind of neat that we get to actually watch it happen and understand they

by mabbo 10y ago

For thousands of years, soothsayers and prophets have predicted the end of the world. Kind of neat that we get to actually watch it happen and understand they whys and hows.

jdimov11 10y ago
For thousands of years they have been 100% wrong - no exceptions. What makes you think you are more capable of fucking up than everyone before you? You're not. Generally speaking, you're also not particularly smarter than people 10 000 years ago. Sure, you have somewhat more advanced technology, but you are grossly overestimating the impact of your actions, especially since you have practically ZERO understanding of how the natural world actually works. Chill. Move on with your life. Have more fun. Make things. Don't worry about breaking things. The end of the world is not one of your problems.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
adrianN 10y ago
Climate change is not the end of the world. The climate has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels higher. The transition period until the climate stabilizes at a higher temperature will be uncomfortable because of problems with agriculture, sea level rise and so on, but I don't think it will wipe out modern civilization.
- treehau5 10y ago
  All of those changes will cause great pains and tribulations for the most vulnerable. Maybe we can genetically engineer more drought-resistant plants or whatnot, but the farmers in rural parts of third-world-countries will suffer, while what's left of their freshwater supplies dry. Once the coral reefs are wiped out from the increased acidification of the oceans, another hundred or so million will starve to death because they rely on food from the ocean.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    Of course, as I said the transition period will be uncomfortable. A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though.
    - spraak 10y ago
      Generally I think "the end of the world" is the end of those observing the world (us, humans). So most of the population dying sounds like the end..
    - treehau5 10y ago
      That transition period is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to accept it as an inevitability, and it is unacceptable to view a few hundred million as inconsequential, especially when the tools are present to solve the issue. In my eyes, once we get to the point where our complacency has allowed us to even think in these terms and still be able to sleep comfortably at night, we have already lost (I'm no exception, and this isn't an accusation). We've allowed power to condense to a select few, and we all feel like small fries in the big global stage.
      - adrianN 10y ago
        I agree that we should stop producing GHGs as quickly as possible. I'm just arguing that climate change is not the end of the world. In the same way you can argue that another global war is probably not the end of the world yet we should avoid it by all means.
    - zhte415 10y ago
      > A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though. Really? Seriously? This seems incredibly dismissive.
      - adrianN 10y ago
        I don't mean the figure of speech "not the end of the world", I mean the literal end of human civilization. I think you have to agree that humanity can carry on even if every tenth human dies. That is less than the death rate caused by the Black Death (~50%) and back then Europe managed to carry on.
- Angostura 10y ago
  Unfortunately, the rate of change is more rapid than anything that we can obviously see in the past, and this is very bad news for the ecosystem's ability adapt. Second, it's not completely clear to me that what this stabilisation temperature that you talk about will be. It we get into a nice vicious circle with permafrosts releasing methane deposits, things get very bad very quickly. Whether you think it will will 'wipe out' modern civilisation rather depends on what you think 'wipe out' means. Certainly civilisation is likely to be much less widely spread across the globe. Wars disease and ecological issues will compound the problems. If not completely wiped out, then greatly reduced and impoverished.
- brchr 10y ago
  "CO2 levels higher": Would you mind sharing your source on this? Here are the last 6,000 years [1] (it cuts off at 4713 BC because that happens to be the earliest timestamp available in Postgres). The source data from the NOAA are here [2] and you can see for yourself that we are something like 30% higher than the highest level of CO2 recorded in the last 800,000 years. If you have a source that tells a different story, let me know. [1] https://numer.al/noaa_data/figures/antarctic-ice-cores-revised-800kyr-co2-data https://numer.al/noaa_data/figures/antarctic-ice-cores-revis... [2] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/antarctica2015co2composite.txt
  - adrianN 10y ago
    During the Devonian and Carboniferous time (~400 million years ago) Earth was like 20 degrees warmer and CO2 was really high.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Diederich 10y ago
      That's correct. If memory serves, it's been >400 ppm quite a few times since. The earth, and rich (though temporarily diminished) life on its surface will continue. I suspect there will be a much smaller number of humans to enjoy it.
    - brchr 10y ago
      Okay, so we can say that: 1. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since human civilization has existed (10k years, roughly). 2. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since humans have existed (200k years, roughly). 3. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since primates have existed (50M years, roughly). But for the sake of argument let’s say: 4. CO2 may not be the highest it has ever been since mammals have existed (200M years, roughly). 5. CO2 is not the highest it has ever been since multicellular life has existed on land (500M years, roughly). Fair enough. Maybe 1-3 are less concerning to you than they are to me. When you say "the climate has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels higher" and are referring to a period prior to the existence of primates, it doesn't necessarily make me feel that much better. :) That said I’m nothing close to being expert in this stuff. It’s interestingly difficult to think about time over so many orders of magnitude.
- inimino 10y ago
  You don't think it will, but you actually don't know. Scientists don't know, because we don't know what tipping points there are. Please don't act like you have a crystal ball.
- joakleaf 10y ago
  It has been warmer... But we've never been so many people on this planet who really depend so much on a stable climate. We are really pushing this planet to the edge right now even without climate change. If the climate changes, we all have to adapt. Cities with millions near the ocean or in extremely hot areas will have to be relocated. Existing agricultural land will become unusable, and we'll have to come up with new land. We are already using up most the planet's fertile ground on agriculture, so it is not like we can just start using the desert. So you'll have migration and food crisis on your hands... I don't know what your definitions of "wipe out" og "end of the world" are, but it will definitely not be without significant issues.

by mabbo 10y ago

For thousands of years, soothsayers and prophets have predicted the end of the world. Kind of neat that we get to actually watch it happen and understand they whys and hows.

jdimov11 10y ago

For thousands of years they have been 100% wrong - no exceptions. What makes you think you are more capable of fucking up than everyone before you? You're not. Generally speaking, you're also not particularly smarter than people 10 000 years ago. Sure, you have somewhat more advanced technology, but you are grossly overestimating the impact of your actions, especially since you have practically ZERO understanding of how the natural world actually works. Chill. Move on with your life. Have more fun. Make things. Don't worry about breaking things. The end of the world is not one of your problems.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

adrianN 10y ago

Climate change is not the end of the world. The climate has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels higher. The transition period until the climate stabilizes at a higher temperature will be uncomfortable because of problems with agriculture, sea level rise and so on, but I don't think it will wipe out modern civilization.

treehau5 10y ago
All of those changes will cause great pains and tribulations for the most vulnerable. Maybe we can genetically engineer more drought-resistant plants or whatnot, but the farmers in rural parts of third-world-countries will suffer, while what's left of their freshwater supplies dry. Once the coral reefs are wiped out from the increased acidification of the oceans, another hundred or so million will starve to death because they rely on food from the ocean.
- adrianN 10y ago
  Of course, as I said the transition period will be uncomfortable. A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though.
  - spraak 10y ago
    Generally I think "the end of the world" is the end of those observing the world (us, humans). So most of the population dying sounds like the end..
  - treehau5 10y ago
    That transition period is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to accept it as an inevitability, and it is unacceptable to view a few hundred million as inconsequential, especially when the tools are present to solve the issue. In my eyes, once we get to the point where our complacency has allowed us to even think in these terms and still be able to sleep comfortably at night, we have already lost (I'm no exception, and this isn't an accusation). We've allowed power to condense to a select few, and we all feel like small fries in the big global stage.
    - adrianN 10y ago
      I agree that we should stop producing GHGs as quickly as possible. I'm just arguing that climate change is not the end of the world. In the same way you can argue that another global war is probably not the end of the world yet we should avoid it by all means.
  - zhte415 10y ago
    > A few hundred million people dying over a time of a couple of decades is very different from the end of the world though. Really? Seriously? This seems incredibly dismissive.
    - adrianN 10y ago
      I don't mean the figure of speech "not the end of the world", I mean the literal end of human civilization. I think you have to agree that humanity can carry on even if every tenth human dies. That is less than the death rate caused by the Black Death (~50%) and back then Europe managed to carry on.
Angostura 10y ago
Unfortunately, the rate of change is more rapid than anything that we can obviously see in the past, and this is very bad news for the ecosystem's ability adapt. Second, it's not completely clear to me that what this stabilisation temperature that you talk about will be. It we get into a nice vicious circle with permafrosts releasing methane deposits, things get very bad very quickly. Whether you think it will will 'wipe out' modern civilisation rather depends on what you think 'wipe out' means. Certainly civilisation is likely to be much less widely spread across the globe. Wars disease and ecological issues will compound the problems. If not completely wiped out, then greatly reduced and impoverished.
brchr 10y ago
"CO2 levels higher": Would you mind sharing your source on this? Here are the last 6,000 years [1] (it cuts off at 4713 BC because that happens to be the earliest timestamp available in Postgres). The source data from the NOAA are here [2] and you can see for yourself that we are something like 30% higher than the highest level of CO2 recorded in the last 800,000 years. If you have a source that tells a different story, let me know. [1] https://numer.al/noaa_data/figures/antarctic-ice-cores-revised-800kyr-co2-data https://numer.al/noaa_data/figures/antarctic-ice-cores-revis... [2] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/antarctica2015co2composite.txt
- adrianN 10y ago
  During the Devonian and Carboniferous time (~400 million years ago) Earth was like 20 degrees warmer and CO2 was really high.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Diederich 10y ago
    That's correct. If memory serves, it's been >400 ppm quite a few times since. The earth, and rich (though temporarily diminished) life on its surface will continue. I suspect there will be a much smaller number of humans to enjoy it.
  - brchr 10y ago
    Okay, so we can say that: 1. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since human civilization has existed (10k years, roughly). 2. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since humans have existed (200k years, roughly). 3. CO2 is currently the highest it has ever been since primates have existed (50M years, roughly). But for the sake of argument let’s say: 4. CO2 may not be the highest it has ever been since mammals have existed (200M years, roughly). 5. CO2 is not the highest it has ever been since multicellular life has existed on land (500M years, roughly). Fair enough. Maybe 1-3 are less concerning to you than they are to me. When you say "the climate has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels higher" and are referring to a period prior to the existence of primates, it doesn't necessarily make me feel that much better. :) That said I’m nothing close to being expert in this stuff. It’s interestingly difficult to think about time over so many orders of magnitude.
inimino 10y ago
You don't think it will, but you actually don't know. Scientists don't know, because we don't know what tipping points there are. Please don't act like you have a crystal ball.
joakleaf 10y ago
It has been warmer... But we've never been so many people on this planet who really depend so much on a stable climate. We are really pushing this planet to the edge right now even without climate change. If the climate changes, we all have to adapt. Cities with millions near the ocean or in extremely hot areas will have to be relocated. Existing agricultural land will become unusable, and we'll have to come up with new land. We are already using up most the planet's fertile ground on agriculture, so it is not like we can just start using the desert. So you'll have migration and food crisis on your hands... I don't know what your definitions of "wipe out" og "end of the world" are, but it will definitely not be without significant issues.