4 ms·

The whole point of the article is that we're past the return point, i.e. even if we stopped burning fossil fuels completely now, the temperatures will continue

The whole point of the article is that we're past the return point, i.e. even if we stopped burning fossil fuels completely now, the temperatures will continue to rise albeit more slowly, so the critical point would be reached later.

hutzlibu 9y ago
Bu even have in the worst case scenarios we are not doomed. Under heavy pressure and possible temporary decline, yes, but doom means extinction to me and this I don't believe. Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years. I bet we could live allmost sustainable on mars by then. And no matter how devastated the earth will be a some point, it will allways be easier to live here. Even if the whole food supply comes from sealed greenhouses. Those we can (and do) build. As long as the sun shines, I see no problem. (And even if the sun don't shine for some years, we could survive. Related: I will start playing Frostpunk tonight..same topic, even though in the scenario they survive by coal, while I would bet on nuclear)
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years." On the whole, our technological advances over the past 100 years have increased the rate of unsustainable energy use, despite widespread awareness of climate change for over half of that. What makes you think the technological advances of the next 100 years are going to be led responsibility? The truth is that there are very few people currently making a positive difference, and if we reach a point where climate change starts becoming inconvenient it'll already be too late.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    Too late for what? To safe everybody? We never did. People allways died of starvation. And people are doing nothing? Well here in germany they can't hear the word sustainable and renewable anymore. But they are still switching slowly. Changes take time. But even China and Saudi Arabia are pushing all for it
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "Too late for what?" Too late to avoid unnecessary deaths. > "To safe everybody? We never did. People allways died of starvation." People die of starvation as a result of war, lack of rainfall and plant diseases. Do we need to add another cause to that list? > "And people are doing nothing?" People aren't doing nothing, but the changes aren't quick enough. For example, how much of our energy currently comes from non-renewable sources? If you look at the graphs here, you'll see that use of oil, coal and natural gas are all growing at faster rates than renewables or nuclear: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption What do you think it will take to turn the tide on this trend?
      - hutzlibu 9y ago
        "> "Too late for what?" Too late to avoid unnecessary deaths." Erm, unnecessary deaths are not nice, sure. But they don't mean Doom for humanity And this also won't: "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption "What do you think it will ake to turn the tide on this trend?" More technology? Exactly what is happening right now. The fire still needs to burn, so we can't just shut of it, before the alternatives aren't ready. And thats the point. There is simply no magic, awesome technology to replace all the fossil driven ones from one day till the next. It is very complex and it will take time. And it probably will go on, even if the sea level rises 4 m and droughts are common. But coal and oil will get burnt till that day, I have no illusions abou that.
- birksherty 9y ago
  Humans will never go extinct from anything like that. Even if there are nuclear wars worldwide, some of us will always survive. Other species will not. Through climate change we have brought ill effects to the whole ecosystem of Earth. And irreversible phase already started. That's why doom is used often. You can always say we are not doomed because humans are selfish and don't want to take the blame. Or take as little blame as possible or just plain ignore. Regarding giving up hope and being careless, I can say one thing. Saying doomed does not make people give up. But saying it's not as bad as it looks definitely makes people be careless. Because they now things it's ok and we will survive anyhow, so why should I put effort and suffer. That's what I have seen with climate change deniers.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    "Saying doomed does not make people give up." No, because they don't believe it (anymore). Thats why. But I like to use words by their intended meaning - so I don't see it positive yelling Doom! to get the information to people, that we have a problem.

hutzlibu 9y ago

Bu even have in the worst case scenarios we are not doomed. Under heavy pressure and possible temporary decline, yes, but doom means extinction to me and this I don't believe. Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years. I bet we could live allmost sustainable on mars by then. And no matter how devastated the earth will be a some point, it will allways be easier to live here. Even if the whole food supply comes from sealed greenhouses. Those we can (and do) build. As long as the sun shines, I see no problem. (And even if the sun don't shine for some years, we could survive. Related: I will start playing Frostpunk tonight..same topic, even though in the scenario they survive by coal, while I would bet on nuclear)

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Especially not with all the technology we are going to build in the next 100 years." On the whole, our technological advances over the past 100 years have increased the rate of unsustainable energy use, despite widespread awareness of climate change for over half of that. What makes you think the technological advances of the next 100 years are going to be led responsibility? The truth is that there are very few people currently making a positive difference, and if we reach a point where climate change starts becoming inconvenient it'll already be too late.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Too late for what? To safe everybody? We never did. People allways died of starvation. And people are doing nothing? Well here in germany they can't hear the word sustainable and renewable anymore. But they are still switching slowly. Changes take time. But even China and Saudi Arabia are pushing all for it
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "Too late for what?" Too late to avoid unnecessary deaths. > "To safe everybody? We never did. People allways died of starvation." People die of starvation as a result of war, lack of rainfall and plant diseases. Do we need to add another cause to that list? > "And people are doing nothing?" People aren't doing nothing, but the changes aren't quick enough. For example, how much of our energy currently comes from non-renewable sources? If you look at the graphs here, you'll see that use of oil, coal and natural gas are all growing at faster rates than renewables or nuclear: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption What do you think it will take to turn the tide on this trend?
    - hutzlibu 9y ago
      "> "Too late for what?" Too late to avoid unnecessary deaths." Erm, unnecessary deaths are not nice, sure. But they don't mean Doom for humanity And this also won't: "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption "What do you think it will ake to turn the tide on this trend?" More technology? Exactly what is happening right now. The fire still needs to burn, so we can't just shut of it, before the alternatives aren't ready. And thats the point. There is simply no magic, awesome technology to replace all the fossil driven ones from one day till the next. It is very complex and it will take time. And it probably will go on, even if the sea level rises 4 m and droughts are common. But coal and oil will get burnt till that day, I have no illusions abou that.
birksherty 9y ago
Humans will never go extinct from anything like that. Even if there are nuclear wars worldwide, some of us will always survive. Other species will not. Through climate change we have brought ill effects to the whole ecosystem of Earth. And irreversible phase already started. That's why doom is used often. You can always say we are not doomed because humans are selfish and don't want to take the blame. Or take as little blame as possible or just plain ignore. Regarding giving up hope and being careless, I can say one thing. Saying doomed does not make people give up. But saying it's not as bad as it looks definitely makes people be careless. Because they now things it's ok and we will survive anyhow, so why should I put effort and suffer. That's what I have seen with climate change deniers.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  "Saying doomed does not make people give up." No, because they don't believe it (anymore). Thats why. But I like to use words by their intended meaning - so I don't see it positive yelling Doom! to get the information to people, that we have a problem.