4 ms·

Climate change that can't be reversed, is not a hinge of history, it's the end of history.

by 127 6y ago

adrianN 6y ago
It's unlikely that humans will die out even assuming worst case scenarios. So I guess it depends on your definition of "history" whether climate can cause it or not.
itsoktocry 6y ago
>the end of history. Climate change killing us, while planning on "going to Mars", is one of the funniest modern narratives. Unabetted climate change will be "devastating" in many ways, but it likely won't wipe us off the face of the earth in a generation. We are incredibly resourceful.
ogre_magi 6y ago
This is such a small take. Climate change can absolutely be reversed by sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization. The reason most climate activists don’t acknowledge that is because they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.” There are (expensive) geoengineering projects that would give humans direct control over global temperature.
- TigeriusKirk 6y ago
  It's also crystal clear geoengineering will ultimately be how the problem is addressed. Everything else is a distraction given the reality of how people and societies work.
- Fricken 6y ago
  Maybe climate change could be by a sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization, if there was some such thing. Climate change could also be solved by a magical flying rabbit, if there was some such thing.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    They aren't talking about sufficiently advanced technology (magic). They're talking about things we can already do, but have serious trade offs. The most common suggestion is to add particles to the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. I think sulfur was first proposed, but I think study of calcium carbonate has been ongoing to avoid the ocean acidification issues that sulfur presents.
    - Fricken 6y ago
      The imaginary part is sufficient determination.
      - ByteJockey 6y ago
        My understanding is that the costs are low enough to be done by a single country unilaterally. At least at first. If we start doing it, and don't reform our ways, it gets progressively more expensive. Probably a nice stop gap if we ever get our shit together, but are staring down some really bad after effects.
- newsbinator 6y ago
  What it would take to move the Earth slightly further away from the sun, to offset that 4º ~ 8º spike?
- 127 6y ago
  We can't simply do many order of magnitudes easier task now (reduce carbon emissions). How exactly do you suggest we do this task you suggest later?
- lucb1e 6y ago
  > they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.” This is obviously false. Please take this nonense elsewhere. I agree with the rest of your comment more than with the person you replied to, like, of course we can have a major effect on the climate if we see the need to (if we indeed see 8°C warming and traditional food supplies failing, suddenly the powers of this world will see ways to do something about it that they aren't doing today) and it doesn't automatically mean an imminent end to history like GP claimed. I just don't get why you had to add the cited part. We're all on the same team.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  [Citation needed]
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I'd like to understand this perspective. The predictions I've seen, even for a worse case scenario, would result in huge levels of sea rise inundating coastal areas, large parts of the Earth becoming uninhabitable for humans, massive ocean die offs, climate-change induced wars, etc. This would quite obviously result in death and misery for billions (again, this is the worst case scenario), but I haven't seen any evidence that the Earth will become fundamentally uninhabitable a la Venus. So it would be a disaster in any sense of the word, but I don't see how it would become a humanity-ending event. I'd like to understand why people think otherwise.
- 127 6y ago
  The current thought patterns that seem to be the dominant ones for the majority of ordinary people seem to assume that there are no feedback loops or tipping points. While the evidence from other planets directly contradicts this. Also with end of history, I didn't mean the end of the human race. Just the end of the current civilization and possibly written history. Another dark age, so to speak.
  - I-M-S 6y ago
    Is it scientifically possible that present conditions on Venus were caused by a civilization that triggered a runaway greenhouse effect artificially?
  - Ekaros 6y ago
    I wonder about this. As carbon we are now emitting must have been at one point in atmosphere? And at that point there was some sort of equilibrium. So could we really push it all to atmosphere again? And would that really lead to loop-back?
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    > While the evidence from other planets directly contradicts this. To echo what another reply said, our own planet contradicts the idea that we would turn into a Venus for some reason. In that all the carbon we're putting back into the atmosphere is from organic processes that took it out of the atmosphere eons ago. So, again, yes, the change will be enormously traumatic for humanity, but I don't see any evidence that written history will somehow disappear, for example.
vixen99 6y ago
It's not very difficult to offer apocalyptic pronouncements like this; it's nice though if they can be accompanied by some hard evidence which has preferably not been cherry picked to fit an agenda.

Climate change that can't be reversed, is not a hinge of history, it's the end of history.

by 127 6y ago

Climate change that can't be reversed, is not a hinge of history, it's the end of history.

It's unlikely that humans will die out even assuming worst case scenarios. So I guess it depends on your definition of "history" whether climate can cause it or not.

itsoktocry 6y ago

>the end of history. Climate change killing us, while planning on "going to Mars", is one of the funniest modern narratives. Unabetted climate change will be "devastating" in many ways, but it likely won't wipe us off the face of the earth in a generation. We are incredibly resourceful.

ogre_magi 6y ago

This is such a small take. Climate change can absolutely be reversed by sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization. The reason most climate activists don’t acknowledge that is because they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.” There are (expensive) geoengineering projects that would give humans direct control over global temperature.

TigeriusKirk 6y ago
It's also crystal clear geoengineering will ultimately be how the problem is addressed. Everything else is a distraction given the reality of how people and societies work.
Fricken 6y ago
Maybe climate change could be by a sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization, if there was some such thing. Climate change could also be solved by a magical flying rabbit, if there was some such thing.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  They aren't talking about sufficiently advanced technology (magic). They're talking about things we can already do, but have serious trade offs. The most common suggestion is to add particles to the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. I think sulfur was first proposed, but I think study of calcium carbonate has been ongoing to avoid the ocean acidification issues that sulfur presents.
  - Fricken 6y ago
    The imaginary part is sufficient determination.
    - ByteJockey 6y ago
      My understanding is that the costs are low enough to be done by a single country unilaterally. At least at first. If we start doing it, and don't reform our ways, it gets progressively more expensive. Probably a nice stop gap if we ever get our shit together, but are staring down some really bad after effects.
newsbinator 6y ago
What it would take to move the Earth slightly further away from the sun, to offset that 4º ~ 8º spike?
127 6y ago
We can't simply do many order of magnitudes easier task now (reduce carbon emissions). How exactly do you suggest we do this task you suggest later?
lucb1e 6y ago
> they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.” This is obviously false. Please take this nonense elsewhere. I agree with the rest of your comment more than with the person you replied to, like, of course we can have a major effect on the climate if we see the need to (if we indeed see 8°C warming and traditional food supplies failing, suddenly the powers of this world will see ways to do something about it that they aren't doing today) and it doesn't automatically mean an imminent end to history like GP claimed. I just don't get why you had to add the cited part. We're all on the same team.
mhh__ 6y ago
[Citation needed]

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

I'd like to understand this perspective. The predictions I've seen, even for a worse case scenario, would result in huge levels of sea rise inundating coastal areas, large parts of the Earth becoming uninhabitable for humans, massive ocean die offs, climate-change induced wars, etc. This would quite obviously result in death and misery for billions (again, this is the worst case scenario), but I haven't seen any evidence that the Earth will become fundamentally uninhabitable a la Venus. So it would be a disaster in any sense of the word, but I don't see how it would become a humanity-ending event. I'd like to understand why people think otherwise.

127 6y ago
The current thought patterns that seem to be the dominant ones for the majority of ordinary people seem to assume that there are no feedback loops or tipping points. While the evidence from other planets directly contradicts this. Also with end of history, I didn't mean the end of the human race. Just the end of the current civilization and possibly written history. Another dark age, so to speak.
- I-M-S 6y ago
  Is it scientifically possible that present conditions on Venus were caused by a civilization that triggered a runaway greenhouse effect artificially?
- Ekaros 6y ago
  I wonder about this. As carbon we are now emitting must have been at one point in atmosphere? And at that point there was some sort of equilibrium. So could we really push it all to atmosphere again? And would that really lead to loop-back?
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  > While the evidence from other planets directly contradicts this. To echo what another reply said, our own planet contradicts the idea that we would turn into a Venus for some reason. In that all the carbon we're putting back into the atmosphere is from organic processes that took it out of the atmosphere eons ago. So, again, yes, the change will be enormously traumatic for humanity, but I don't see any evidence that written history will somehow disappear, for example.

vixen99 6y ago

It's not very difficult to offer apocalyptic pronouncements like this; it's nice though if they can be accompanied by some hard evidence which has preferably not been cherry picked to fit an agenda.