4 ms·

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

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.
      - mempko 8y ago
        You need to take a historical look at how technology is developed. Technology requires huge investments by a well maintained and organized society. For example, US government invested for 30+ years in computers before they became a mainstream product. What happens when you take away organized human life (like a relatively well functioning government)? You won't get any technological improvement. Technological improvement requires stable societies and climate change will disrupt all societies on earth. It's even completely plausible that organized human life won't be possible if we don't tackle climate change now. So any hope of developing the technology you are talking about rests on huge efforts to solve the climate problem.
      - godelski 8y ago
        > 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. I agree with this, but that doesn't change my previous statements. Take this scenario (exaggerated, but to make a point). Assume that no crops could survive outside we'd have to move to do all our agriculture as hydro or aeroponics. I'd call that catastrophic and at least in the beginning it would put a significant stress on every living person. A lot of people would starve. But yes, humans would survive. Most people don't think we're going to turn the planet into a place humans can't live in (I mean we're pretty innovative and adaptable). But a lot of people do recognize that the affects will result in a lot of people dying and significant stressors that will extremely hinder forward progress (to such an extent I think most agree that it will set us back). So I __kind of__ agree with you, but your position also appears very naive. Though I do love the optimism and faith you have for humans as a species.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    No matter what we do, Earth will stay the most hospitable planet by far for us. Ten degrees more, ten degrees less.. still a walk in the park compared to all other places.
    - godelski 8y ago
      I think this is what a lot of people forget. And to get technical, there are places that are (likely) just as hospitable, but we can't reach them in any reasonable amount of time.
- seanwilson 8y ago
  > Sequestration is an important step that we need to be taking seriously. Does this mean that within the space of a few decades, we'd need to suck back in a large proportion of the gases that we've been pumping out globally 24/7 over a century? Are there realistic numbers for this?
  - godelski 8y ago
    I don't have numbers off hand, but if we can get back to nominal levels that'd be great. There's no great technology right now that could do it at scale and for a reasonable price (arguable). But even sequestering part of the emissions would help dramatically. Because many forget that even if we went to zero emissions today that the temperature would still increase over the next century, from the existing damage done. Sequestration can help mitigate this damage.

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.
    - mempko 8y ago
      You need to take a historical look at how technology is developed. Technology requires huge investments by a well maintained and organized society. For example, US government invested for 30+ years in computers before they became a mainstream product. What happens when you take away organized human life (like a relatively well functioning government)? You won't get any technological improvement. Technological improvement requires stable societies and climate change will disrupt all societies on earth. It's even completely plausible that organized human life won't be possible if we don't tackle climate change now. So any hope of developing the technology you are talking about rests on huge efforts to solve the climate problem.
    - godelski 8y ago
      > 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. I agree with this, but that doesn't change my previous statements. Take this scenario (exaggerated, but to make a point). Assume that no crops could survive outside we'd have to move to do all our agriculture as hydro or aeroponics. I'd call that catastrophic and at least in the beginning it would put a significant stress on every living person. A lot of people would starve. But yes, humans would survive. Most people don't think we're going to turn the planet into a place humans can't live in (I mean we're pretty innovative and adaptable). But a lot of people do recognize that the affects will result in a lot of people dying and significant stressors that will extremely hinder forward progress (to such an extent I think most agree that it will set us back). So I __kind of__ agree with you, but your position also appears very naive. Though I do love the optimism and faith you have for humans as a species.
- kaybe 8y ago
  No matter what we do, Earth will stay the most hospitable planet by far for us. Ten degrees more, ten degrees less.. still a walk in the park compared to all other places.
  - godelski 8y ago
    I think this is what a lot of people forget. And to get technical, there are places that are (likely) just as hospitable, but we can't reach them in any reasonable amount of time.
seanwilson 8y ago
> Sequestration is an important step that we need to be taking seriously. Does this mean that within the space of a few decades, we'd need to suck back in a large proportion of the gases that we've been pumping out globally 24/7 over a century? Are there realistic numbers for this?
- godelski 8y ago
  I don't have numbers off hand, but if we can get back to nominal levels that'd be great. There's no great technology right now that could do it at scale and for a reasonable price (arguable). But even sequestering part of the emissions would help dramatically. Because many forget that even if we went to zero emissions today that the temperature would still increase over the next century, from the existing damage done. Sequestration can help mitigate this damage.