4 ms·

Precisely. As long as the planet does not overheat, a warmer planet is a better planet.

tdeck 5y ago
Define "overheat". The crust makes up less than 1% of the planet's mass, so theoretically everything on the surface could burn / boil off and 99% of the planet would still be fine.
lalaland1125 5y ago
Except for the fact that most systems on the planet are adapted for the current temperature. In theory a rising sea level isn't a big deal in the abstract, but we have already built a ton of property along the coast ...
- novalis78 5y ago
  Adaptations change. They will and must. Live is change. I think too many folks on here are too young to remember the very same green doomsday scenarios which we were mentally tormented with and NONE of them panned out. Not buying it. The planet will warm. Faster. Live will go on. The real focus should be on making life multi-planetary asap. That's more important in the long run than anything else.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    I think you vastly underestimate the cost of redesigning / rebuilding all of our coastal cities to adapt to the fact that they are now below sea level.
HappySweeney 5y ago
It isn't just the amount of heat, but how fast it is being introduced.
- novalis78 5y ago
  Well, let's take a look. In 1978 we were going to be iceball Earth according to the sensationalist media. Let's take a look in 40 years from now and see if it all wasn't just a big scam to scare people into political policies they otherwise would not support.
  - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
    Since we are commenting on an article that, whatever its other virtues and vices, is extremely well-researched, you might want to take a few minutes to look up the "fact" that you're claiming in your second sentence. The tl;dr is that "The Cooling Earth" was always a minority view among climate scientists; it was actually a competing theory to the anthropogenic global warming theory, as they both started in the 1970s; that one of the theories (global warming) persisted while the other (global cooling) faded quickly can be plausibly explained by both theories offering testable and mutually exclusive predictions, one set of which turned out to roughly match the data and the other of which didn't match it at all. That we are talking about global warming now and stopped talking about global cooling is not a sign of a "scam to scare people," it is a sign of science working the way it is supposed to.
AgentME 5y ago
Did you only read the very beginning of the article? Most of the article is skeptical of the idea that there are a lot of deaths caused by cold that would be solved by rising temperatures. (And that's without even getting into that climate change would likely cause more temperature extremes in both directions rather than uniformly increasing the temperature.)

Define "overheat". The crust makes up less than 1% of the planet's mass, so theoretically everything on the surface could burn / boil off and 99% of the planet would still be fine.

lalaland1125 5y ago

Except for the fact that most systems on the planet are adapted for the current temperature. In theory a rising sea level isn't a big deal in the abstract, but we have already built a ton of property along the coast ...

novalis78 5y ago
Adaptations change. They will and must. Live is change. I think too many folks on here are too young to remember the very same green doomsday scenarios which we were mentally tormented with and NONE of them panned out. Not buying it. The planet will warm. Faster. Live will go on. The real focus should be on making life multi-planetary asap. That's more important in the long run than anything else.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  I think you vastly underestimate the cost of redesigning / rebuilding all of our coastal cities to adapt to the fact that they are now below sea level.

HappySweeney 5y ago

It isn't just the amount of heat, but how fast it is being introduced.

novalis78 5y ago
Well, let's take a look. In 1978 we were going to be iceball Earth according to the sensationalist media. Let's take a look in 40 years from now and see if it all wasn't just a big scam to scare people into political policies they otherwise would not support.
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  Since we are commenting on an article that, whatever its other virtues and vices, is extremely well-researched, you might want to take a few minutes to look up the "fact" that you're claiming in your second sentence. The tl;dr is that "The Cooling Earth" was always a minority view among climate scientists; it was actually a competing theory to the anthropogenic global warming theory, as they both started in the 1970s; that one of the theories (global warming) persisted while the other (global cooling) faded quickly can be plausibly explained by both theories offering testable and mutually exclusive predictions, one set of which turned out to roughly match the data and the other of which didn't match it at all. That we are talking about global warming now and stopped talking about global cooling is not a sign of a "scam to scare people," it is a sign of science working the way it is supposed to.

AgentME 5y ago

Did you only read the very beginning of the article? Most of the article is skeptical of the idea that there are a lot of deaths caused by cold that would be solved by rising temperatures. (And that's without even getting into that climate change would likely cause more temperature extremes in both directions rather than uniformly increasing the temperature.)