5 ms·

Plants. Plant trees, plant as many trees as possible. The planet is warming naturally anyways, if we are speeding it up (we are, that's like 99.9999% certain, r

Plants. Plant trees, plant as many trees as possible. The planet is warming naturally anyways, if we are speeding it up (we are, that's like 99.9999% certain, right?), we are heading there anyways. Humans will be fine regardless, the planet will be fine regardless. Adapt, evolve...and plant trees. Focus on meaning, worrying about climate change is a fools purpose imo the bigger picture is not climate change look past it.

rapind 8y ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropical-forests-cool-earth/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropical-forests-...
lenticular 8y ago
We are heading into very dangerous territory. While there may be some natural warming, the effects we see now are overwhelmingly anthropogenic, and thus can be mitigated by emissions controls. Your suggestion to the contrary is not at all supported scientifically. We are probably locked in to 2-3C rise at this point, and realistically we may hit more like 4C or more eventually with politically realistic emissions scenarios. If emissions go completely uncontrolled in the future, an ultimate warming of 10C or more, while not likely, is not out of the question. That would be completely civilization-ending, and would cause a mass extinction of scale not seen since the P-T boundary several hundred million years ago. This is a problem we are causing. We need to take it seriously. Anyone who buys homeowner's insurance should agree with that logic.
- godelski 8y ago
  I think what the OP is getting at is that we need to sequester that carbon. I'm all in for reducing emissions as much as we can. But that doesn't take care of the contaminants already in the air and ocean (and what is being released from under the ice). Sequestration is an important step that we need to be taking seriously. Though I don't agree with their comment about worrying is for fools. Edit: It doesn't seem that's what OP is getting at. But __I__ think we need to talk about sequestration in conjunction with radically lowering our emissions.
  - DigiMortal 8y ago
    It's because the human purpose isn't to stay on this planet. Depends on your worldview, but yes it is a fools purpose in the greater sense of things.
    - godelski 8y ago
      If you're taking that as an evolutionary thing, then it'd be better to say that humans aren't meant to __only__ stay on this planet and to fill every available niche. If you're saying it is foolish to not expand, then I'd agree with you. But I think there's a lot we can learn about terraforming our own planet, because frankly we don't have any good options out there currently. Mars is not yet viable (Venus is worse, other planets are too far away). And even if we started terraforming with radical means (like nuking the ice caps and tossing asteroids at it), Mars still wouldn't be viable by the time our planet's temperature rises to catastrophic levels. So no, I don't think it is a fool's task. In fact I'd say it is foolish to not be concerned.
      - DigiMortal 8y ago
        Yes - I take it more as a purpose/meaning type of subject. I believe that our purpose is to advance technology, mostly by playing god and creating intelligent systems that will far surpass humans - hopefully we can merge with that intelligent system that we create. In addition to that, I think its our purpose to advance and expand throughout the universe for as long as we can do it. We will likely face extermination by that intelligent system or merge with it. I think its more important to evolve that system. When I typed a "fools purpose" I mostly mean its meaningless in the scheme of things to devote all this worry, concern, everything surrounding a warming home planet. Yes, there are scientifically concerning results that it could be devastating. But I highly doubt that humanity will not adapt to whatever changes come that way, life on the planet can be re-engineered, created, modified. Though your point of, hypothetically, will a warming climate end the potential of what I've said? As long as we can create energy, then no I doubt it.
        8y ago
throway88989898 8y ago
TIL this exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_ball#Seed_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_ball#Seed_bombing and that China has reportedly sent troops to reforest by land in the past.
mempko 8y ago
Except that you better plant the right kind of trees. Trees are dying all over the world because the band at which they can survive is moving many miles a year, so whatever tree planting we do must happen in a very short amount of time otherwise we will end up with dead trees and fire hazard. Except that animals are simply NOT adapting fast enough and more than 60% of animals and a possibly higher percentage of bugs has disappeared in 30 years. So, unfortunately, the natural world is not adapting and evolving. Things are just dying. > We are heading there anyways Imagine you see a wall in front of you. If you crawl towards that wall (like the world would do naturally) it won't hurt that much hitting it. If you fly a jet airplane into that wall (like we are doing) you will likely die in a fiery crash. Natural world = crawl like baby, Human Climate Change = fly jet. The RATE of change is what's the problem here.

rapind 8y ago

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropical-forests-cool-earth/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropical-forests-...

lenticular 8y ago

We are heading into very dangerous territory. While there may be some natural warming, the effects we see now are overwhelmingly anthropogenic, and thus can be mitigated by emissions controls. Your suggestion to the contrary is not at all supported scientifically. We are probably locked in to 2-3C rise at this point, and realistically we may hit more like 4C or more eventually with politically realistic emissions scenarios. If emissions go completely uncontrolled in the future, an ultimate warming of 10C or more, while not likely, is not out of the question. That would be completely civilization-ending, and would cause a mass extinction of scale not seen since the P-T boundary several hundred million years ago. This is a problem we are causing. We need to take it seriously. Anyone who buys homeowner's insurance should agree with that logic.

godelski 8y ago
I think what the OP is getting at is that we need to sequester that carbon. I'm all in for reducing emissions as much as we can. But that doesn't take care of the contaminants already in the air and ocean (and what is being released from under the ice). Sequestration is an important step that we need to be taking seriously. Though I don't agree with their comment about worrying is for fools. Edit: It doesn't seem that's what OP is getting at. But __I__ think we need to talk about sequestration in conjunction with radically lowering our emissions.
- DigiMortal 8y ago
  It's because the human purpose isn't to stay on this planet. Depends on your worldview, but yes it is a fools purpose in the greater sense of things.
  - godelski 8y ago
    If you're taking that as an evolutionary thing, then it'd be better to say that humans aren't meant to __only__ stay on this planet and to fill every available niche. If you're saying it is foolish to not expand, then I'd agree with you. But I think there's a lot we can learn about terraforming our own planet, because frankly we don't have any good options out there currently. Mars is not yet viable (Venus is worse, other planets are too far away). And even if we started terraforming with radical means (like nuking the ice caps and tossing asteroids at it), Mars still wouldn't be viable by the time our planet's temperature rises to catastrophic levels. So no, I don't think it is a fool's task. In fact I'd say it is foolish to not be concerned.
    - DigiMortal 8y ago
      Yes - I take it more as a purpose/meaning type of subject. I believe that our purpose is to advance technology, mostly by playing god and creating intelligent systems that will far surpass humans - hopefully we can merge with that intelligent system that we create. In addition to that, I think its our purpose to advance and expand throughout the universe for as long as we can do it. We will likely face extermination by that intelligent system or merge with it. I think its more important to evolve that system. When I typed a "fools purpose" I mostly mean its meaningless in the scheme of things to devote all this worry, concern, everything surrounding a warming home planet. Yes, there are scientifically concerning results that it could be devastating. But I highly doubt that humanity will not adapt to whatever changes come that way, life on the planet can be re-engineered, created, modified. Though your point of, hypothetically, will a warming climate end the potential of what I've said? As long as we can create energy, then no I doubt it.
      - 8y ago

throway88989898 8y ago

TIL this exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_ball#Seed_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_ball#Seed_bombing and that China has reportedly sent troops to reforest by land in the past.

mempko 8y ago

Except that you better plant the right kind of trees. Trees are dying all over the world because the band at which they can survive is moving many miles a year, so whatever tree planting we do must happen in a very short amount of time otherwise we will end up with dead trees and fire hazard. Except that animals are simply NOT adapting fast enough and more than 60% of animals and a possibly higher percentage of bugs has disappeared in 30 years. So, unfortunately, the natural world is not adapting and evolving. Things are just dying. > We are heading there anyways Imagine you see a wall in front of you. If you crawl towards that wall (like the world would do naturally) it won't hurt that much hitting it. If you fly a jet airplane into that wall (like we are doing) you will likely die in a fiery crash. Natural world = crawl like baby, Human Climate Change = fly jet. The RATE of change is what's the problem here.