5 ms·

Did you actually read the article? You are being downvoted because you repeat canard with no real data, and nothing is topical in your comment.

by titzer 9y ago

tim333 9y ago
I skimmed it and edited a little. I guess I'm more optimistic about tech fixes that the author. Does anyone sensible think we're actually doomed?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Antimachides 9y ago
  Ah yes, tech fixes.
  - lozenge 9y ago
    The excess CO2 in the atmosphere, with a volume of 400,000 Empire State Buildings, is ripe for disruption! Source: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
- realusername 9y ago
  we will need a lot more than "tech fixes" with the current situation.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Well, I'm personally doomed, as are we all, sooner or later. So far, anyway. I agree that industrial civilization is very likely doomed. Or at least, except for the wealthy. There's just too much momentum from CO2 already in the atmosphere. Even if no more were released, starting today. And then there are all the potential, arguably likely, positive feedbacks. Such as melting of permafrost in northern Canada and Siberia. But I disagree about the mass extinction aspect. Earth is in the midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction. But collapse of industrial civilization will mitigate that, I suspect. Climate change will drive some species extinct, but overall diversity will do better without so many people. As you say, CO2 levels were higher in the past. But damn, when they were, the Earth was a tropical hothouse. But what's bad about rapid CO2 increase is that evolutionary change can't keep up. Species, even entire ecosystems, will get sucker punched. And even so, having less people will help. I doubt that humans will go extinct, either. We're tough bastards. Maybe there's a population bottleneck coming, but that's often a good thing, in the long term.
- crispinb 9y ago
  > Does anyone sensible think we're actually doomed? It's been at least 2 decades since I've met or heard from one who didn't.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Does anyone sensible think we're actually doomed? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=scientists+letter+warning&atb=v64-5_a&t=cros&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=scientists+letter+warning&atb=v64-... "Thousands of scientists issue bleak 'second notice' to humanity" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/13/thousands-of-scientists-issue-bleak-second-notice-to-humanity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2... "16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity - CNN" https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humani... "20,000 Scientists Sign "Warning To Humanity" Letter About ..." https://trofire.com/2018/03/18/20000-scientists-sign-warning-to-humanity-letter-about-environmental-destruction/ https://trofire.com/2018/03/18/20000-scientists-sign-warning... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
- whataretensors 9y ago
  I think we'll be fine. The earth just needs a brain to heal itself, or to plan to heal itself. I don't agree at all with the half-assed expensive solutions proposed so far.
lucideer 9y ago
The article is similarly data-free. The only references are to known/well-accepted figures that everyone is mentioning, e.g. the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions. The so-called "climate reality no one else will dare mention" isn't really explored, and certainly isn't referenced, save for fairly spurious lines like: > A small band of artists and writers [...] have embraced the idea that “civilisation” will soon end in environmental catastrophe but only a few scientists [...] have suggested as much. So both the number of artists and writers, AND the number of scientists supporting this are apparently small. And, again, unreferenced. I won't defend the commenter here directly, but their comment is certainly no worse nor less valid than the article.

Did you actually read the article? You are being downvoted because you repeat canard with no real data, and nothing is topical in your comment.

by titzer 9y ago

Did you actually read the article? You are being downvoted because you repeat canard with no real data, and nothing is topical in your comment.

tim333 9y ago

I skimmed it and edited a little. I guess I'm more optimistic about tech fixes that the author. Does anyone sensible think we're actually doomed?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Antimachides 9y ago
Ah yes, tech fixes.
- lozenge 9y ago
  The excess CO2 in the atmosphere, with a volume of 400,000 Empire State Buildings, is ripe for disruption! Source: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
realusername 9y ago
we will need a lot more than "tech fixes" with the current situation.
mirimir 9y ago
Well, I'm personally doomed, as are we all, sooner or later. So far, anyway. I agree that industrial civilization is very likely doomed. Or at least, except for the wealthy. There's just too much momentum from CO2 already in the atmosphere. Even if no more were released, starting today. And then there are all the potential, arguably likely, positive feedbacks. Such as melting of permafrost in northern Canada and Siberia. But I disagree about the mass extinction aspect. Earth is in the midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction. But collapse of industrial civilization will mitigate that, I suspect. Climate change will drive some species extinct, but overall diversity will do better without so many people. As you say, CO2 levels were higher in the past. But damn, when they were, the Earth was a tropical hothouse. But what's bad about rapid CO2 increase is that evolutionary change can't keep up. Species, even entire ecosystems, will get sucker punched. And even so, having less people will help. I doubt that humans will go extinct, either. We're tough bastards. Maybe there's a population bottleneck coming, but that's often a good thing, in the long term.
crispinb 9y ago
> Does anyone sensible think we're actually doomed? It's been at least 2 decades since I've met or heard from one who didn't.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Does anyone sensible think we're actually doomed? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=scientists+letter+warning&atb=v64-5_a&t=cros&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=scientists+letter+warning&atb=v64-... "Thousands of scientists issue bleak 'second notice' to humanity" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/13/thousands-of-scientists-issue-bleak-second-notice-to-humanity https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2... "16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity - CNN" https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humani... "20,000 Scientists Sign "Warning To Humanity" Letter About ..." https://trofire.com/2018/03/18/20000-scientists-sign-warning-to-humanity-letter-about-environmental-destruction/ https://trofire.com/2018/03/18/20000-scientists-sign-warning... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
whataretensors 9y ago
I think we'll be fine. The earth just needs a brain to heal itself, or to plan to heal itself. I don't agree at all with the half-assed expensive solutions proposed so far.

lucideer 9y ago

The article is similarly data-free. The only references are to known/well-accepted figures that everyone is mentioning, e.g. the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions. The so-called "climate reality no one else will dare mention" isn't really explored, and certainly isn't referenced, save for fairly spurious lines like: > A small band of artists and writers [...] have embraced the idea that “civilisation” will soon end in environmental catastrophe but only a few scientists [...] have suggested as much. So both the number of artists and writers, AND the number of scientists supporting this are apparently small. And, again, unreferenced. I won't defend the commenter here directly, but their comment is certainly no worse nor less valid than the article.