2 ms·

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful responses so far. http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/impactfromthedeep.pdf http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/im

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful responses so far. http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/impactfromthedeep.pdf http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/impactfromthedeep.pd... If you can, please let me know what you think of the image on page 6. Mind you this is an unproven theory about the end permian mass extinction. But it's an interesting perspective on what could cause the whole planet to become uninhabitable, rather than just shifting the comfortable zone farther to the poles. I'm curious about your thoughts on, if it did happen that way, how long humans would last in such conditions. Humans are hardy and adaptable, but so are insects, birds, rats, and many other species. Somehow the end permian extinction killed up to 96% of all species, including even insects and the formerly ubiquitous trilobite, and apparently nowhere on Earth was spared. Land vertebrates were almost wiped out. I also appreciate the optimism about mars colonies, but we actually haven't demonstrated the technology or robustness to even sustain a colony on Antarctica without outside support. If we did set up a mars colony, I'm skeptical that it could last even a hundred years on its own. Technology is a powerful tool but supporting cement factories, steel mills, silicon fabs, power plants, farms, and everything else, in a self-sustaining way, really requires a habitable planet. I don't think it would be possible to sustain in an underground bunker for very long.

minblaster 7y ago
Thanks for the reference, that is interesting. I think that's what I was looking for in a theory of why things will be bad: it's not the temperature change itself (a few degrees is fine), or the atmospheric CO2 levels (still far less than 1%), or even the water levels (we can move, if painful economically), but the release of H2S, which kicks off a chain reaction of extinction, which may impact food supply etc. I hardly know enough to comment on whether that is likely. But I think it's a much better argument about why the Earth will be uninhabitable for us specifically. (That said, it doesn't really matter if the earth eventually becomes uninhabitable or not, we want to avoid the cost of having to move everyone for even minor sea level rises.)
- jbay808 7y ago
  Thanks for replying. Yeah I fully agree with you. The more probable impacts of climate change are bad enough that they should be the motivation. I think as an existential threat, it's an unlikely outcome but not one that we can totally rule out... Like other existential threats.

minblaster 7y ago

Thanks for the reference, that is interesting. I think that's what I was looking for in a theory of why things will be bad: it's not the temperature change itself (a few degrees is fine), or the atmospheric CO2 levels (still far less than 1%), or even the water levels (we can move, if painful economically), but the release of H2S, which kicks off a chain reaction of extinction, which may impact food supply etc. I hardly know enough to comment on whether that is likely. But I think it's a much better argument about why the Earth will be uninhabitable for us specifically. (That said, it doesn't really matter if the earth eventually becomes uninhabitable or not, we want to avoid the cost of having to move everyone for even minor sea level rises.)

jbay808 7y ago
Thanks for replying. Yeah I fully agree with you. The more probable impacts of climate change are bad enough that they should be the motivation. I think as an existential threat, it's an unlikely outcome but not one that we can totally rule out... Like other existential threats.