4 ms·

I'm a climate alarmist. Methane levels are accelerating in the arctic: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/03/methane-rise-is-accelerating.html https://arct

I'm a climate alarmist. Methane levels are accelerating in the arctic: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/03/methane-rise-is-accelerating.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/03/methane-rise-is-acc... I agree with that blog - human civilization probably won't survive the decade. Only chance is if we aggressively geoengineered oceans near the equator using Olivine: https://www.vesta.earth/ https://www.vesta.earth/ We need trillions of dollars put towards the effort and I just don't see that happening. We're doomed.

mathlover2 5y ago
This is a site that has Guy McPherson as a contributor: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson Looking at the quoted article, it looks like the tired old "methane bubbles come all at once" argument which is a distortion of the actual science around this. Climate change is real and a huge problem that we can and need to solve. Stop feeding inaction and disdain for real science by promoting cranks sites like these. EDIT: Looks like this site has been reviewed along with McPherson before: https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/ https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcphe...
- specialist 5y ago
  Dismissing a person's anxiety about existential threats is also unhelpful. As if u/halfjoking has more responsibility, agency, culpability than the actual villians. True, a return to Eocene-like conditions (iirc atmospheric methane 200ppm) is unlikely. (On mobile; too lazy to find tidbit that rules out calthrate gun hypothesis.) But there are plenty of existential threats. As well as compounding factors interacting in unforeseeable ways. In other words, please be nicer. Shit's bad, getting a lot worse, and people are (understandably) freaking out.
  - mathlover2 5y ago
    Fair. It's just that I am a bit grumpy at all the people denying parts of science to fit their agendas. I've been dealing with a more classical denialist on Discord. Halfjoking, if you are reading this, I apologize for being so forceful. I should not have assumed you were knowingly posting incorrect information, and I should have been more polite.
    - halfjoking 5y ago
      No need to apologize - I'm used to reddit where I get banned. But I do not agree alarmism feeds inaction and disdain. I want geoengineering to happen now. I want more surveys of the ocean seafloor like the study of this post. It would be great if someone could prove that negative feedbacks are going to offset the positive feedbacks like albedo change in the arctic. The IPCC has consistently underestimated the rate changes are accelerating and I'm extrapolating. I don't mind if people do more science to prove my extrapolations are way off.
echelon 5y ago
I really hope we don't go extinct before some form of intelligence (preferably friendly and, even if artificial, descended from our human spirit) leaves this planet to explore the beyond. Like you, I sometimes worry we've got a lot of challenges and obstacles left to avoid before we finish the race. Here's my personal list of "most likely" existential threats from most to least likely (in my opinion) 1. Vulnerable World 2. Nuclear MAD 3. Geopolitical strife and decay 4. Naturally arising biological agent (independent of #1) 5. Peak energy / resource exhaustion 6. Hostile AGI 7. Runaway climate/ecosystem breakdown 8. Geological or cosmological event 9. Aliens Vulnerable world seems both incredibly plausible and impossible to contain. As we work up the technological capability ladder, we'll gain access to tools and delivery mechanisms that can theoretically kill all humans. But the scary part is that these tools will potentially be accessible to hobbyists without government backing. I do expect the ordering of this list shuffle around in my lifetime. Not necessarily in response to bad events, but more likely our technological progress. I'm still ranking AI low, but who knows what future developments might bring. Deep learning sort of took us all by surprise.

mathlover2 5y ago

This is a site that has Guy McPherson as a contributor: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson Looking at the quoted article, it looks like the tired old "methane bubbles come all at once" argument which is a distortion of the actual science around this. Climate change is real and a huge problem that we can and need to solve. Stop feeding inaction and disdain for real science by promoting cranks sites like these. EDIT: Looks like this site has been reviewed along with McPherson before: https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/ https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcphe...

specialist 5y ago
Dismissing a person's anxiety about existential threats is also unhelpful. As if u/halfjoking has more responsibility, agency, culpability than the actual villians. True, a return to Eocene-like conditions (iirc atmospheric methane 200ppm) is unlikely. (On mobile; too lazy to find tidbit that rules out calthrate gun hypothesis.) But there are plenty of existential threats. As well as compounding factors interacting in unforeseeable ways. In other words, please be nicer. Shit's bad, getting a lot worse, and people are (understandably) freaking out.
- mathlover2 5y ago
  Fair. It's just that I am a bit grumpy at all the people denying parts of science to fit their agendas. I've been dealing with a more classical denialist on Discord. Halfjoking, if you are reading this, I apologize for being so forceful. I should not have assumed you were knowingly posting incorrect information, and I should have been more polite.
  - halfjoking 5y ago
    No need to apologize - I'm used to reddit where I get banned. But I do not agree alarmism feeds inaction and disdain. I want geoengineering to happen now. I want more surveys of the ocean seafloor like the study of this post. It would be great if someone could prove that negative feedbacks are going to offset the positive feedbacks like albedo change in the arctic. The IPCC has consistently underestimated the rate changes are accelerating and I'm extrapolating. I don't mind if people do more science to prove my extrapolations are way off.

echelon 5y ago

I really hope we don't go extinct before some form of intelligence (preferably friendly and, even if artificial, descended from our human spirit) leaves this planet to explore the beyond. Like you, I sometimes worry we've got a lot of challenges and obstacles left to avoid before we finish the race. Here's my personal list of "most likely" existential threats from most to least likely (in my opinion) 1. Vulnerable World 2. Nuclear MAD 3. Geopolitical strife and decay 4. Naturally arising biological agent (independent of #1) 5. Peak energy / resource exhaustion 6. Hostile AGI 7. Runaway climate/ecosystem breakdown 8. Geological or cosmological event 9. Aliens Vulnerable world seems both incredibly plausible and impossible to contain. As we work up the technological capability ladder, we'll gain access to tools and delivery mechanisms that can theoretically kill all humans. But the scary part is that these tools will potentially be accessible to hobbyists without government backing. I do expect the ordering of this list shuffle around in my lifetime. Not necessarily in response to bad events, but more likely our technological progress. I'm still ranking AI low, but who knows what future developments might bring. Deep learning sort of took us all by surprise.