4 ms·

No one person has that kind of power. Also, our species will be fine, but civilization may not be.

m_mueller 9y ago
> our species will be fine People keep saying that, but I wouldn't be so sure. From an earlier comment of mine (edited for clarity/formatting): Most recent study of methane flux/storage in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf: [1] Arctic temperatures are estimated to rise 1.9x compared to global average: [2] During Holocene Climate Optimum (the warmest period in human history) the arctic is estimated to have been 4-6C warmer than baseline (yearly average): [3] That's not all that much. We're now already at 400ppm CO2, and recent unmitigated projections to 2100 (538ppm) simulate an arctic yearly average of ~ plus 8C [4]. And that most probably doesn't take a positive methane feedback loop into account. This is a significant gamble. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum boundary showed a global average warming of 5C, mostly from arctic methane at a time where there wasn't even a large ice shelf, so with significantly lower capacity [5]. We can only guess what a global average temperature increase of 13C could do to the ecosystem that's currently feeding 7B people. [1] http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451 http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/2014... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/full [3] https://epic.awi.de/38441/1/Beierlein_2015_Holocene_page1.pdf https://epic.awi.de/38441/1/Beierlein_2015_Holocene_page1.pd... [4] http://climatenewsnetwork.net/arctic-is-set-to-reach-13c-by-2100/ http://climatenewsnetwork.net/arctic-is-set-to-reach-13c-by-... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...
- tomw2005 9y ago
  I would argue that the species will be fine. If your definition of 'fine' is the species surviving. If 99% of the human race were wiped out by Global Warming we would still have 70 million humans on the planet (approx one UK). That should be more than enough to repopulate given a long long time. Obviously that would be a terrible disaster the likes of which our race has never seen. 100 times the death toll of WW2 and would destroy pretty much all our infrastructure etc as supply chains fail etc. This is something we should strive to avoid at all costs but I do think the species would survive. We are quite a hardy bunch actually.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    Yes, that's what I meant by "fine". A darker part of me even desires a quick environmental cataclysm - but on balance I'd rather we colonised space pronto.
    - tomw2005 9y ago
      The backup planet strategy is one I approve of. Backup solar system would be better.
      - windlessstorm 9y ago
        RAID 10 life

> our species will be fine People keep saying that, but I wouldn't be so sure. From an earlier comment of mine (edited for clarity/formatting): Most recent study of methane flux/storage in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf: [1] Arctic temperatures are estimated to rise 1.9x compared to global average: [2] During Holocene Climate Optimum (the warmest period in human history) the arctic is estimated to have been 4-6C warmer than baseline (yearly average): [3] That's not all that much. We're now already at 400ppm CO2, and recent unmitigated projections to 2100 (538ppm) simulate an arctic yearly average of ~ plus 8C [4]. And that most probably doesn't take a positive methane feedback loop into account. This is a significant gamble. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum boundary showed a global average warming of 5C, mostly from arctic methane at a time where there wasn't even a large ice shelf, so with significantly lower capacity [5]. We can only guess what a global average temperature increase of 13C could do to the ecosystem that's currently feeding 7B people. [1] http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451 http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/2014... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/full [3] https://epic.awi.de/38441/1/Beierlein_2015_Holocene_page1.pdf https://epic.awi.de/38441/1/Beierlein_2015_Holocene_page1.pd... [4] http://climatenewsnetwork.net/arctic-is-set-to-reach-13c-by-2100/ http://climatenewsnetwork.net/arctic-is-set-to-reach-13c-by-... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...

tomw2005 9y ago
I would argue that the species will be fine. If your definition of 'fine' is the species surviving. If 99% of the human race were wiped out by Global Warming we would still have 70 million humans on the planet (approx one UK). That should be more than enough to repopulate given a long long time. Obviously that would be a terrible disaster the likes of which our race has never seen. 100 times the death toll of WW2 and would destroy pretty much all our infrastructure etc as supply chains fail etc. This is something we should strive to avoid at all costs but I do think the species would survive. We are quite a hardy bunch actually.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Yes, that's what I meant by "fine". A darker part of me even desires a quick environmental cataclysm - but on balance I'd rather we colonised space pronto.
  - tomw2005 9y ago
    The backup planet strategy is one I approve of. Backup solar system would be better.
    - windlessstorm 9y ago
      RAID 10 life