5 ms·

> The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the

> The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. Please don't misrepresent claims that "we have X years to stop global warming before it becomes irreversible" as "the earth will be uninhabitable in X years."

toyg 7y ago
To be honest, it’s obvious that we’re already too late for “reversing” anyway: there is no practical way to dramatically change how 7.5bn people live and work, in just 4 years. Even if we all dropped what we’re doing this very minute and started looking for other ways to live, in 4 years we would’ve barely scratched the surface of the problem. At that point, whether we have 4 or 2 years before the tipping point, is fundamentally irrelevant. Maybe we should just accept that change is coming, and brace for it.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  A significant portion of "bracing for it" would involve trying to minimize the level of damage; that's basically the same effort as trying to avoid it, so...
  - toyg 7y ago
    The scale is different, and when it comes to societal acceptance, scale is everything. “We need to stop all industry tomorrow or ice will melt!” Vs “Ice will melt. We need to close a few of the worst-impacting plants so it melts a bit slower and gives us time to figure out where we might need dams. Everybody else, as you were.” The first proposition has no chance whatsoever to be taken seriously. I understand Overton but I admit a certain tiredness on this particular falling-sky topic.
    - mcv 7y ago
      The problem is: the second one is not going to be enough. Closing a few plants won't do it. We need to dramatically change how we generate our energy. Figuring out where we might need dams may be enough for the next couple decades, but if ice caps continue to melt, dams are never going to be able to stop 60 m of sea level rise. Melting slower is not enough. And at the moment, it's only going to melt faster because we're still producing way too much CO2.
      - toyg 7y ago
        > Melting slower is not enough. Well, we've already accepted that it's the only realistic option, because 4 years is not enough to do anything else. If you really think that, then you should just buy a canoe today.
        mcv 7y ago
        A canoe won't do you much good. And even getting it to melt slower than it's currently doing requires more effort than we're currently putting into this. We can and should do way more than is currently happening. I am utterly disgusted by this literal "apres moi le deluge" attitude.
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        This is made worse because it's the ultimate commons problem: nobody is paying, everyone is suffering the costs. At least the people who uttered this stupidity paid for it and dearly, and damage was prevented. (Albeit a calamity followed.) This time, the scale and stakes are much bigger, potentially extinction level.
      - Kaiyou 7y ago
        How do you propose to fix this problem?
        mcv 7y ago
        Dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 we produce. That's not going to prevent all problems, but if we do enough, it will prevent the worst problems. We really need to aim at zero CO2 production. We will fall short of that goal, but everything will help slow things down, and eventually bring temperatures back to what they were, after natural plant growth has gotten the time needed to remove CO2 from the air again. Once that happens, the melting will stop and climates will stabilize. If we can get global temperatures back to normal in a century, that means we'll have about 1-2 meter of sea level rise to cope with. That means the end of the Maldives and serious investments in some coastal areas, but many coastal cities will survive. If we can get temperatures back to normal earlier than that, that will mean less sea level rise, and significantly less other problems. Not all damage can be undone, but some will, and there will be a limit to it. But the longer it takes, the worse the effects will be, and the longer it will take to recover. Of course we can also help nature a bit and plant more trees and look for other ways to get more CO2 out of the air. It maybe be drops in a bucket, but we're going to need a lot of drops, so we better get started. At the moment, we're still barely doing anything.

toyg 7y ago

To be honest, it’s obvious that we’re already too late for “reversing” anyway: there is no practical way to dramatically change how 7.5bn people live and work, in just 4 years. Even if we all dropped what we’re doing this very minute and started looking for other ways to live, in 4 years we would’ve barely scratched the surface of the problem. At that point, whether we have 4 or 2 years before the tipping point, is fundamentally irrelevant. Maybe we should just accept that change is coming, and brace for it.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
A significant portion of "bracing for it" would involve trying to minimize the level of damage; that's basically the same effort as trying to avoid it, so...
- toyg 7y ago
  The scale is different, and when it comes to societal acceptance, scale is everything. “We need to stop all industry tomorrow or ice will melt!” Vs “Ice will melt. We need to close a few of the worst-impacting plants so it melts a bit slower and gives us time to figure out where we might need dams. Everybody else, as you were.” The first proposition has no chance whatsoever to be taken seriously. I understand Overton but I admit a certain tiredness on this particular falling-sky topic.
  - mcv 7y ago
    The problem is: the second one is not going to be enough. Closing a few plants won't do it. We need to dramatically change how we generate our energy. Figuring out where we might need dams may be enough for the next couple decades, but if ice caps continue to melt, dams are never going to be able to stop 60 m of sea level rise. Melting slower is not enough. And at the moment, it's only going to melt faster because we're still producing way too much CO2.
    - toyg 7y ago
      > Melting slower is not enough. Well, we've already accepted that it's the only realistic option, because 4 years is not enough to do anything else. If you really think that, then you should just buy a canoe today.
      - mcv 7y ago
        A canoe won't do you much good. And even getting it to melt slower than it's currently doing requires more effort than we're currently putting into this. We can and should do way more than is currently happening. I am utterly disgusted by this literal "apres moi le deluge" attitude.
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        This is made worse because it's the ultimate commons problem: nobody is paying, everyone is suffering the costs. At least the people who uttered this stupidity paid for it and dearly, and damage was prevented. (Albeit a calamity followed.) This time, the scale and stakes are much bigger, potentially extinction level.
    - Kaiyou 7y ago
      How do you propose to fix this problem?
      - mcv 7y ago
        Dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 we produce. That's not going to prevent all problems, but if we do enough, it will prevent the worst problems. We really need to aim at zero CO2 production. We will fall short of that goal, but everything will help slow things down, and eventually bring temperatures back to what they were, after natural plant growth has gotten the time needed to remove CO2 from the air again. Once that happens, the melting will stop and climates will stabilize. If we can get global temperatures back to normal in a century, that means we'll have about 1-2 meter of sea level rise to cope with. That means the end of the Maldives and serious investments in some coastal areas, but many coastal cities will survive. If we can get temperatures back to normal earlier than that, that will mean less sea level rise, and significantly less other problems. Not all damage can be undone, but some will, and there will be a limit to it. But the longer it takes, the worse the effects will be, and the longer it will take to recover. Of course we can also help nature a bit and plant more trees and look for other ways to get more CO2 out of the air. It maybe be drops in a bucket, but we're going to need a lot of drops, so we better get started. At the moment, we're still barely doing anything.