3 ms·

Okay, but the frightening part is that this is only true to a point. And that point is where positive feedback loops dominate at which point it is very much bo

Okay, but the frightening part is that this is only true to a point. And that point is where positive feedback loops dominate at which point it is very much boolean, habitable by humans or not. But we do not know where that threshold is. And we may have already passed it. We just pretend there isn't a real threshold because scientists can't tell us exactly where it is yet so we might as well just keep doing what we've been doing for another 20 years... like we've been using as an excuse for the last 40.

rhino369 5y ago
I don't think there is any sort of scientific consensus that i) there is a point where its too warm for earth to be habitable for humans or ii) there is a massive feedback loop threshold.
- kadoban 5y ago
  There is certainly a point past which the Earth cannot support the same order of magnitude of humans, at similar technology levels. It's hard to argue that there are no bad feedback loops once temperature gets higher. We know of several huge methane stores that are temperature dependent, we know how ice and clouds work as temperature rises, etc. We're gambling 90-100% of humanity on the critical points not being reachable.
  - bloopernova 5y ago
    I have this mental image of the scene from Erik The Viking where the island is sinking into the sea, but everyone on the island is denying anything is happening. It's heartbreaking. We had everything and we pissed it away.
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      And continue to worry about scientific consensus as if the mechanisms for piles of known positive feedback mechanisms aren't numerous and straightforward. The comment a few up is textbook 90s fossil fuel company except having ceded ground on the trivial, trivial reality that climate change exists at all. Because there's certainly *not* scientific consensus that there are negative (technical sense) feedback loops that continue to stabilize the climate (well enough) far away from the steady state climate and a lot of good reason to think that they will fail to keep up.

rhino369 5y ago

I don't think there is any sort of scientific consensus that i) there is a point where its too warm for earth to be habitable for humans or ii) there is a massive feedback loop threshold.

kadoban 5y ago
There is certainly a point past which the Earth cannot support the same order of magnitude of humans, at similar technology levels. It's hard to argue that there are no bad feedback loops once temperature gets higher. We know of several huge methane stores that are temperature dependent, we know how ice and clouds work as temperature rises, etc. We're gambling 90-100% of humanity on the critical points not being reachable.
- bloopernova 5y ago
  I have this mental image of the scene from Erik The Viking where the island is sinking into the sea, but everyone on the island is denying anything is happening. It's heartbreaking. We had everything and we pissed it away.
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    And continue to worry about scientific consensus as if the mechanisms for piles of known positive feedback mechanisms aren't numerous and straightforward. The comment a few up is textbook 90s fossil fuel company except having ceded ground on the trivial, trivial reality that climate change exists at all. Because there's certainly *not* scientific consensus that there are negative (technical sense) feedback loops that continue to stabilize the climate (well enough) far away from the steady state climate and a lot of good reason to think that they will fail to keep up.