5 ms·

I don't think "opponents of global warming" are concerned about the higher temperatures of that time period.

thepangolino 8y ago
What I never understood is why suddenly higher temperatures are such a disaster while all evidence points to a warmer climate being a good thing for the biosphere.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I hope you aren't just trying to be cute but here is what I think: They are a disaster because we have found some equilibrium with the current state. When temperatures change there will probably have to be mass migrations of people from areas that became inhabitable to places that became habitable. I believe in the long run we'll be fine but in the short run you will see a lot of conflict and war to fight for resources. This won't be pleasant.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ams6110 8y ago
    > you will see a lot of conflict and war to fight for resources. This won't be pleasant. So in other words, like all of human history?
- brazzledazzle 8y ago
  They’re a disaster when you consider the human suffering and impact on the biodiversity of the species currently living. It doesn’t matter if biodiversity ends up great over the next millennia if large portions (or all) of humanity die off and suffer during an adjustment period. People are concerned about the earth and environment but they’re also worried about humans because they’re humans too. You’ve built a straw man and can’t understand why it burns so brightly.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  Go look up the PT or KT extinction events. The PT was particularly traumatic and involved significant runaway warming, including possibly the firing of the "clathrate gun". In general the point is, dramatic changes in the climate may be good for future evolved life forms, but they will suck for existing ones.
  - dTal 8y ago
    Did you mean to say "clathrate gun"?
    - astazangasta 8y ago
      Yes, a thousand curses on the creators of autocorrect.
- dTal 8y ago
  All of the Cambrian biodiversity was underwater, with nothing larger than bacteria on land. Would you consider it a good thing if the world suddenly flooded? (In case the point isn't clear: even if we exactly reverted to Cambrian conditions, that would be Bad for humans (there were no humans in the Cambrian) - but that wouldn't happen anyway, what would actually happen is everything would die from the sudden shock.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- woodandsteel 8y ago
  One reason it is bad is that the temperature rise is happening at least two orders of magnitude faster than in the past, so evolution can't keep up. Another is that maybe a billion people live in areas that would become uninhabitable.

What I never understood is why suddenly higher temperatures are such a disaster while all evidence points to a warmer climate being a good thing for the biosphere.

maxxxxx 8y ago
I hope you aren't just trying to be cute but here is what I think: They are a disaster because we have found some equilibrium with the current state. When temperatures change there will probably have to be mass migrations of people from areas that became inhabitable to places that became habitable. I believe in the long run we'll be fine but in the short run you will see a lot of conflict and war to fight for resources. This won't be pleasant.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ams6110 8y ago
  > you will see a lot of conflict and war to fight for resources. This won't be pleasant. So in other words, like all of human history?
brazzledazzle 8y ago
They’re a disaster when you consider the human suffering and impact on the biodiversity of the species currently living. It doesn’t matter if biodiversity ends up great over the next millennia if large portions (or all) of humanity die off and suffer during an adjustment period. People are concerned about the earth and environment but they’re also worried about humans because they’re humans too. You’ve built a straw man and can’t understand why it burns so brightly.
astazangasta 8y ago
Go look up the PT or KT extinction events. The PT was particularly traumatic and involved significant runaway warming, including possibly the firing of the "clathrate gun". In general the point is, dramatic changes in the climate may be good for future evolved life forms, but they will suck for existing ones.
- dTal 8y ago
  Did you mean to say "clathrate gun"?
  - astazangasta 8y ago
    Yes, a thousand curses on the creators of autocorrect.
dTal 8y ago
All of the Cambrian biodiversity was underwater, with nothing larger than bacteria on land. Would you consider it a good thing if the world suddenly flooded? (In case the point isn't clear: even if we exactly reverted to Cambrian conditions, that would be Bad for humans (there were no humans in the Cambrian) - but that wouldn't happen anyway, what would actually happen is everything would die from the sudden shock.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel 8y ago
One reason it is bad is that the temperature rise is happening at least two orders of magnitude faster than in the past, so evolution can't keep up. Another is that maybe a billion people live in areas that would become uninhabitable.