6 ms·

next the tundra melts and releases an insane amount of methane. we are so screwed.

username223 9y ago
It seems like we keep discovering new positive feedback loops for global warming. Less ice means less reflection. Warmer arctic means more methane from permafrost. Desertification means less carbon capture. There was a recent article in Scientific American about likely changes in cloud formation from AGW. Some clouds reflect sun (cooling), while others trap heat (warming). Guess which are likely to increase? I doubt humans will go extinct, but yeah... we're screwed.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Humans might not. Human culture and civilisation might.
- ataturk 9y ago
  I hope they only keep the smart people and murder just the dumb ones.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  Don’t forget oceanic dead zones and acidification! All it takes is the death of an important part of the food chain to really hurt a lot of people.
- codecamper 9y ago
  I'm of the opinion that all of life on Earth evolved over a long period of time to match the more or less steady state environment. When you go and disturb that steady state by say releasing a million years worth of carbon sequestration over a century, you destabilize the whole thing. Like a top spinning it all of a sudden collapses. And then humans realize that we were really just along for the ride & do not have a chance to re-stabilize.
  - andygates 9y ago
    I can smell the Gaia daisies in that opinion. But this is a big perturbation and it'll take a long time to settle back down again. Fine for life overall, but troublesome for hairless monkeys and their agricultural base.
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      are we talking about those daisies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld ? and this gaia: https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gaia_by_humon-mother-nature-human-comic-hugging.jpg https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gai... ?
  - netzone 9y ago
    But from that point of view - aren't you underestimating Earths ability to adapt? Or overestimating the power Humans have over Earth. What if Human technological advancement is Earths plan to regulate itself?
- b1daly 9y ago
  Define screwed. I’m not sure what I think about the “climate change” issue, but I maintain a reserve of skepticism towards proclamations of apocalyptic doom. A) Humans, and all living things, are screwed from the get go. A guaranteed calamity awaits us all. I think contributes to a lack of perspective that is not helpful, and possibley harmful. On a number of levels, personal and political. B) The fact that climate change gets far more discussion and attention than the ongoing calamity of US military conduct is telling. It tells me that climate change, which is complex, and only ameliorated by levels of global cooperation never seen before, serves as a “boogie man” for the “politically aware.” Organizing against the conduct of corporate war, as it operates globally, presents far more “low hanging fruit” for positive outcomes, at doable price levels. Yet, there are no serious (meaning electable) politicians in the US who have an opposition to the crazy influence of corporate money. The military spending (and its corruption) is protected from scrutiny by seemingly insurmountable social structures. Yet, achieving meaningful reductions in military activities, if not spending, is within the realm of imaginable. It is far more doable than the level of global cooperation that is required to reduce carbon emissions. But people who might be inclined to support collective efforts to clean up the corporate-military-political complex are demoralized. The Republicans apparently pride themselves on taken the worst possible courses of action on challenging problems. They are working to undercut the science of climate change! Frankly, I see global action on significant greenhouse gas reductions as impossible. So, somehow, liberal minded folks have found a perfect subject to project their sense of hopeless futility in “global warming”, an almost intractable problem. In the meantime, there are unexplored opportunities to improve our communities, and world, all around us. If we, the US, could somehow turn the corner on the lunatic resistance to gun control, and then make some active progress on military misadventures, maybe Americans might think about giving up on meat.
  - ghthor 9y ago
    I love this type of analysis and call to action. If each person following this type of reasoning in their own lives, our societal issues would start clearing themselves up pretty quick.
  - username223 9y ago
    > Define screwed. (1) Global warming is a runaway process already well underway. (2) Our political and economic system are too short-sighted to deal with existential threats that will only come to fruition 100 years from now. CEOs look at quarterly numbers; political leaders think as far as the next election. (3) Humans do not seem to naturally plan beyond their own lifetimes. This makes evolutionary sense, but we evolved back before we could cook the planet. (4) Global warming is happening way faster than most natural selection. Fruit flies may be just fine. > achieving meaningful reductions in military activities, if not spending, is within the realm of imaginable. It is far more doable than the level of global cooperation that is required to reduce carbon emissions. I disagree here. There are extremely low-cost ways to wean humanity from fossil fuels. Solar energy prices have been coming down dramatically, to the point where utility companies might switch away from coal out of self-interest. A nudge in the right direction, instead of "drill baby drill" and "bring coal back," could have a huge effect down the line. Unfortunately, we seem unable to plan on those timescales.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Out of curiosity what makes you doubt human will go extinct. It is quite obvious that we are collectively failing to deal with climate change and that this could be the great filter according to the fermi paradox where humans disappear. Climate change sure has the potential to remove current condition favorable to human life on the planet as it has already happened in the past. https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gaia_by_humon-mother-nature-human-comic-hugging.jpg https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gai...
  - username223 9y ago
    I think we're adaptable and numerous enough that a stable breeding population would survive somewhere. Maybe Elon Musk's descendants will stop trying to shoot things at Mars and instead build a self-contained mini-ecosystem here on Earth. Who knows? That's not to say it would be pleasant -- a rapid population reduction from 7 billion to under a million would not be pretty -- but extinction is hard.
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      I don't think we're adaptable enough to survive without food. Collapse of the food chain have happened on Earth before humans and is among possible consequences of climate change. Same with breathable air, how would humans adapt to an athmosphere composition without oxygen as happens when earth magnetic field is weaken during geomagnetic reversals ? My point is we are facing an ongoing mass extinction event and based on current knowledge of previous events humans being wiped out is a possibility. Based on the number of species that are extinct, extinction is not that hard specially during a mass extinction event.
krautt 9y ago
how?
- wizardforhire 9y ago
  The Clathrate Gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis Edit: also had to track down this video from the UN climate change conference. The Wikipedia article tends to down play it periodically. https://youtu.be/QQkNxuQ0DoI https://youtu.be/QQkNxuQ0DoI

It seems like we keep discovering new positive feedback loops for global warming. Less ice means less reflection. Warmer arctic means more methane from permafrost. Desertification means less carbon capture. There was a recent article in Scientific American about likely changes in cloud formation from AGW. Some clouds reflect sun (cooling), while others trap heat (warming). Guess which are likely to increase? I doubt humans will go extinct, but yeah... we're screwed.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Humans might not. Human culture and civilisation might.
ataturk 9y ago
I hope they only keep the smart people and murder just the dumb ones.
tachyoff 9y ago
Don’t forget oceanic dead zones and acidification! All it takes is the death of an important part of the food chain to really hurt a lot of people.
codecamper 9y ago
I'm of the opinion that all of life on Earth evolved over a long period of time to match the more or less steady state environment. When you go and disturb that steady state by say releasing a million years worth of carbon sequestration over a century, you destabilize the whole thing. Like a top spinning it all of a sudden collapses. And then humans realize that we were really just along for the ride & do not have a chance to re-stabilize.
- andygates 9y ago
  I can smell the Gaia daisies in that opinion. But this is a big perturbation and it'll take a long time to settle back down again. Fine for life overall, but troublesome for hairless monkeys and their agricultural base.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    are we talking about those daisies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld ? and this gaia: https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gaia_by_humon-mother-nature-human-comic-hugging.jpg https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gai... ?
- netzone 9y ago
  But from that point of view - aren't you underestimating Earths ability to adapt? Or overestimating the power Humans have over Earth. What if Human technological advancement is Earths plan to regulate itself?
b1daly 9y ago
Define screwed. I’m not sure what I think about the “climate change” issue, but I maintain a reserve of skepticism towards proclamations of apocalyptic doom. A) Humans, and all living things, are screwed from the get go. A guaranteed calamity awaits us all. I think contributes to a lack of perspective that is not helpful, and possibley harmful. On a number of levels, personal and political. B) The fact that climate change gets far more discussion and attention than the ongoing calamity of US military conduct is telling. It tells me that climate change, which is complex, and only ameliorated by levels of global cooperation never seen before, serves as a “boogie man” for the “politically aware.” Organizing against the conduct of corporate war, as it operates globally, presents far more “low hanging fruit” for positive outcomes, at doable price levels. Yet, there are no serious (meaning electable) politicians in the US who have an opposition to the crazy influence of corporate money. The military spending (and its corruption) is protected from scrutiny by seemingly insurmountable social structures. Yet, achieving meaningful reductions in military activities, if not spending, is within the realm of imaginable. It is far more doable than the level of global cooperation that is required to reduce carbon emissions. But people who might be inclined to support collective efforts to clean up the corporate-military-political complex are demoralized. The Republicans apparently pride themselves on taken the worst possible courses of action on challenging problems. They are working to undercut the science of climate change! Frankly, I see global action on significant greenhouse gas reductions as impossible. So, somehow, liberal minded folks have found a perfect subject to project their sense of hopeless futility in “global warming”, an almost intractable problem. In the meantime, there are unexplored opportunities to improve our communities, and world, all around us. If we, the US, could somehow turn the corner on the lunatic resistance to gun control, and then make some active progress on military misadventures, maybe Americans might think about giving up on meat.
- ghthor 9y ago
  I love this type of analysis and call to action. If each person following this type of reasoning in their own lives, our societal issues would start clearing themselves up pretty quick.
- username223 9y ago
  > Define screwed. (1) Global warming is a runaway process already well underway. (2) Our political and economic system are too short-sighted to deal with existential threats that will only come to fruition 100 years from now. CEOs look at quarterly numbers; political leaders think as far as the next election. (3) Humans do not seem to naturally plan beyond their own lifetimes. This makes evolutionary sense, but we evolved back before we could cook the planet. (4) Global warming is happening way faster than most natural selection. Fruit flies may be just fine. > achieving meaningful reductions in military activities, if not spending, is within the realm of imaginable. It is far more doable than the level of global cooperation that is required to reduce carbon emissions. I disagree here. There are extremely low-cost ways to wean humanity from fossil fuels. Solar energy prices have been coming down dramatically, to the point where utility companies might switch away from coal out of self-interest. A nudge in the right direction, instead of "drill baby drill" and "bring coal back," could have a huge effect down the line. Unfortunately, we seem unable to plan on those timescales.
bigbugbag 9y ago
Out of curiosity what makes you doubt human will go extinct. It is quite obvious that we are collectively failing to deal with climate change and that this could be the great filter according to the fermi paradox where humans disappear. Climate change sure has the potential to remove current condition favorable to human life on the planet as it has already happened in the past. https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gaia_by_humon-mother-nature-human-comic-hugging.jpg https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gai...
- username223 9y ago
  I think we're adaptable and numerous enough that a stable breeding population would survive somewhere. Maybe Elon Musk's descendants will stop trying to shoot things at Mars and instead build a self-contained mini-ecosystem here on Earth. Who knows? That's not to say it would be pleasant -- a rapid population reduction from 7 billion to under a million would not be pretty -- but extinction is hard.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    I don't think we're adaptable enough to survive without food. Collapse of the food chain have happened on Earth before humans and is among possible consequences of climate change. Same with breathable air, how would humans adapt to an athmosphere composition without oxygen as happens when earth magnetic field is weaken during geomagnetic reversals ? My point is we are facing an ongoing mass extinction event and based on current knowledge of previous events humans being wiped out is a possibility. Based on the number of species that are extinct, extinction is not that hard specially during a mass extinction event.

krautt 9y ago

how?

wizardforhire 9y ago
The Clathrate Gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis Edit: also had to track down this video from the UN climate change conference. The Wikipedia article tends to down play it periodically. https://youtu.be/QQkNxuQ0DoI https://youtu.be/QQkNxuQ0DoI