4 ms·

Global heating is not on par with nuclear war. Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years, nuclear fallout is not. At worst many people will die but

Global heating is not on par with nuclear war. Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years, nuclear fallout is not. At worst many people will die but not the entire earth will be inhabitable. Keep in mind that earth cannot get worse than the last time all CO2 was in the atmosphere. Trees are younger than sharks. There was plenty of life when all CO2 was free. Somewhere in that environment will be space for life like the last time. Sharks and trees and many other animals and plants made it though that environment. And somewhere in that environment, there will be some space for humans because we will be adaptable. Instead, the biggest threat is AI. It's the new nuclear race. It will come as fast as human possible and it will have access to the most powerful weapons since any participant in that race will need that move to protect themselves. Unlike CO2, AI will add something to the system that wasn't there before. Its power will be unmatched and unlike humans, it won't miss any lost life-form.

electricviolet 7y ago
> Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years That's optimistic. Climate change is potentially reversible, but it would involve large-scale geoengineering or carbon capture that we don't have the technology for yet. Developing and deploying that currently-nonexistent technology requires a stable, organized society. It's plausible that climate change could cause the breakdown of organized society before we're able to develop technology to reverse it.
- toohotatopic 7y ago
  Don't forget the trees. Maybe it's a couple of thousand years, but let them roam earth and the CO2 is gone, like the last time. Since bacteria is digesting cellulose this time, we can't rely on earth to fold over old wood. Instead, humans will have to manage the storage. But that should be doable, given the speed with which we can harvest forests.
- to11mtm 7y ago
  I wish I could remember the name of the plant... But there's some tree that grows like a freaking weed and is amazing for carbon sequestration. I feel like even having 'more' trees again would be helpful; where my family grew up, over the years all the big/old trees that were in people's yards were never replaced as they went away.
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    You have to make sure the tree never rots or burns. And the only way to do that is to bury it deep underground or freeze it in an iceberg.
    - chrisweekly 7y ago
      Or leave it alone to live and thrive, with the downside you have to be willing to tolerate its side effects, eg producing shade and wildlife habitat and oxygen and medicines and beauty and other things nobody wants.
      - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
        The tree is taking up space so no more trees can grow in that spot. That means there is a limited amount of carbon we can store on the surface of the planet. We started this situation with lots of carbon and greenhouse gasses trapped underground and with a surface full of trees. We can't go back without putting the carbon back.
    - toohotatopic 7y ago
      Build ships and throw them into the ocean. The wood just has to decay slower than new trees grow. Also: carbon nano tubes and carbon fiber. We will build skyscrapers from carbon. There won't be enough carbon available for all the stuff we want to build.
imtringued 7y ago
>Keep in mind that earth cannot get worse than the last time all CO2 was in the atmosphere. Are you not aware of climate science or even basic astronomy? As the sun grows older and gets closer to the end of its live span it grows stronger and outputs more heat. The growth in solar irradiance happens over the course of millions of years with some lows and highs in the short term (we currently have an insane increase in global temperatures despite slightly lower solar activity compared to a hundred years ago but compared to 10-100 million years ago the sun is significantly stronger). CO2 that is emitted today has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2 that had been emitted millions of years ago.
arthens 7y ago
> Global heating is not on par with nuclear war Global heating is worse. Nuclear has a worse worst case scenario. But global warming is worse because it's not a hypothetical threat, it's something that is already happening. Nuclear threat could be (and was) resolved with common sense, but the time to resolve global warming with common sense was 30 years ago. Now our best outcome is to mitigate its effects. In the best case scenario millions will die. Mass migrations and wars are likely to happen. Recent data even say that we might have underestimated the risk. > Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years [...] At worst many people will die but not the entire earth will be inhabitable. The planet will be fine, our civilisation might not be.
anigbrowl 7y ago
On the other hand, nuclear war can be avoided by closely monitoring the behavior of a few hundred people.
acidburnNSA 7y ago
Most plausible nuclear war scenarios don't make the earth uninhabitable forever. Stay inside for as long as possible (at least 48 hours after any blast 500 miles upwind) and you'll probably be ok. The ~30-year Sr-90 effect will be left but it's way less dangerous than the first few hour fallout. http://www.oism.org/nwss/ http://www.oism.org/nwss/
CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
The climate is a big complex system. From what I gather scientists thinks it’s moving towards new equilibriums states that we are powerless to change, the window of opportunity is now (if we have t missed it already). Also, it’s not just about CO2 that’s just one piece of it. There’s also other gasses, like methane f.ex, to be concerned about. Besides gasses there are things like ice , water and cloud reflectivity.

electricviolet 7y ago

> Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years That's optimistic. Climate change is potentially reversible, but it would involve large-scale geoengineering or carbon capture that we don't have the technology for yet. Developing and deploying that currently-nonexistent technology requires a stable, organized society. It's plausible that climate change could cause the breakdown of organized society before we're able to develop technology to reverse it.

toohotatopic 7y ago
Don't forget the trees. Maybe it's a couple of thousand years, but let them roam earth and the CO2 is gone, like the last time. Since bacteria is digesting cellulose this time, we can't rely on earth to fold over old wood. Instead, humans will have to manage the storage. But that should be doable, given the speed with which we can harvest forests.
to11mtm 7y ago
I wish I could remember the name of the plant... But there's some tree that grows like a freaking weed and is amazing for carbon sequestration. I feel like even having 'more' trees again would be helpful; where my family grew up, over the years all the big/old trees that were in people's yards were never replaced as they went away.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  You have to make sure the tree never rots or burns. And the only way to do that is to bury it deep underground or freeze it in an iceberg.
  - chrisweekly 7y ago
    Or leave it alone to live and thrive, with the downside you have to be willing to tolerate its side effects, eg producing shade and wildlife habitat and oxygen and medicines and beauty and other things nobody wants.
    - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
      The tree is taking up space so no more trees can grow in that spot. That means there is a limited amount of carbon we can store on the surface of the planet. We started this situation with lots of carbon and greenhouse gasses trapped underground and with a surface full of trees. We can't go back without putting the carbon back.
  - toohotatopic 7y ago
    Build ships and throw them into the ocean. The wood just has to decay slower than new trees grow. Also: carbon nano tubes and carbon fiber. We will build skyscrapers from carbon. There won't be enough carbon available for all the stuff we want to build.

imtringued 7y ago

>Keep in mind that earth cannot get worse than the last time all CO2 was in the atmosphere. Are you not aware of climate science or even basic astronomy? As the sun grows older and gets closer to the end of its live span it grows stronger and outputs more heat. The growth in solar irradiance happens over the course of millions of years with some lows and highs in the short term (we currently have an insane increase in global temperatures despite slightly lower solar activity compared to a hundred years ago but compared to 10-100 million years ago the sun is significantly stronger). CO2 that is emitted today has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2 that had been emitted millions of years ago.

arthens 7y ago

> Global heating is not on par with nuclear war Global heating is worse. Nuclear has a worse worst case scenario. But global warming is worse because it's not a hypothetical threat, it's something that is already happening. Nuclear threat could be (and was) resolved with common sense, but the time to resolve global warming with common sense was 30 years ago. Now our best outcome is to mitigate its effects. In the best case scenario millions will die. Mass migrations and wars are likely to happen. Recent data even say that we might have underestimated the risk. > Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years [...] At worst many people will die but not the entire earth will be inhabitable. The planet will be fine, our civilisation might not be.

anigbrowl 7y ago

On the other hand, nuclear war can be avoided by closely monitoring the behavior of a few hundred people.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Most plausible nuclear war scenarios don't make the earth uninhabitable forever. Stay inside for as long as possible (at least 48 hours after any blast 500 miles upwind) and you'll probably be ok. The ~30-year Sr-90 effect will be left but it's way less dangerous than the first few hour fallout. http://www.oism.org/nwss/ http://www.oism.org/nwss/

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

The climate is a big complex system. From what I gather scientists thinks it’s moving towards new equilibriums states that we are powerless to change, the window of opportunity is now (if we have t missed it already). Also, it’s not just about CO2 that’s just one piece of it. There’s also other gasses, like methane f.ex, to be concerned about. Besides gasses there are things like ice , water and cloud reflectivity.