3 ms·

It's misleading to imply that this is an exponential process, rather than an S-curve. If we look where all the oil came from, we could deduce that by burning it

by Geee 4y ago

It's misleading to imply that this is an exponential process, rather than an S-curve. If we look where all the oil came from, we could deduce that by burning it all we would be just going back to similar environment. I.e. the absolute worst thing that could happen is a tropical paradise.

turtledove 4y ago
The problem is not the end state, it's the speed at which we are approaching that end state. Think about a car moving down the highway, when you gradually apply the brake, you can safely decelerate to 0. When you hit a stationary barrier, getting to 0 is potentially deadly and also damages the car. Rapid climate change kills species, disrupts supply chains, increases damaging weather like hurricanes, destroys agricultural lands, and erodes shorelines. All of which we could cope with over thousands or millions of years. But doing it over hundreds is going to be a catastrophe.
- Geee 4y ago
  Agree. Still, most people seem to be under the impression that there's a "tipping point" and then temperatures will spiral into infinity. It's disruptive, but nature and humanity is adaptive. Many species will also thrive, and total agricultural output will rise with more co2 in atmosphere.
adrianN 4y ago
The transition from today's world to tropical paradise would include mass extinctions and a lot of human suffering.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  The real question is - is any of that human suffering going to be my own?
EForEndeavour 4y ago
A "tropical paradise" at the poles, with uninhabitable equatorial regions, and untold disruption to human civilization as we know it. The transition to that global configuration is unlikely to look paradisal.
- Geee 4y ago
  That's not likely going to happen. There are many periods in Earth history where co2 levels were way higher than now, and no large-scale desertification events are known. Periods of very high co2 and higher temperatures are known for hosting more life.[0][1] Plants and animals thrive in high co2. Less co2 has caused glacification events and loss of life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Fauna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Fauna
  - EForEndeavour 4y ago
    I didn't mention desertification, but habitability - I meant to imply "inhabitable by unprotected humans." The Eocene saw a thermal maximum in which global mean temperature increased by about 6 ºC, and a much wetter climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Evidence_for_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature: > The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3: > Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will prevent most of the tropics from reaching a TW of 35 °C, the limit of human adaptation.
    - Geee 4y ago
      Fair point. How about animals? It seems that many modern mammals, including primates, evolved and thrived during the Eocene. Most of the world today is too cold for humans living without protection, so I'm not completely buying that it would be worse than today. It might require moving around a bit, but not a total catastrophe.

by Geee 4y ago

turtledove 4y ago

The problem is not the end state, it's the speed at which we are approaching that end state. Think about a car moving down the highway, when you gradually apply the brake, you can safely decelerate to 0. When you hit a stationary barrier, getting to 0 is potentially deadly and also damages the car. Rapid climate change kills species, disrupts supply chains, increases damaging weather like hurricanes, destroys agricultural lands, and erodes shorelines. All of which we could cope with over thousands or millions of years. But doing it over hundreds is going to be a catastrophe.

Geee 4y ago
Agree. Still, most people seem to be under the impression that there's a "tipping point" and then temperatures will spiral into infinity. It's disruptive, but nature and humanity is adaptive. Many species will also thrive, and total agricultural output will rise with more co2 in atmosphere.

adrianN 4y ago

The transition from today's world to tropical paradise would include mass extinctions and a lot of human suffering.

hotpotamus 4y ago
The real question is - is any of that human suffering going to be my own?

EForEndeavour 4y ago

A "tropical paradise" at the poles, with uninhabitable equatorial regions, and untold disruption to human civilization as we know it. The transition to that global configuration is unlikely to look paradisal.

Geee 4y ago
That's not likely going to happen. There are many periods in Earth history where co2 levels were way higher than now, and no large-scale desertification events are known. Periods of very high co2 and higher temperatures are known for hosting more life.[0][1] Plants and animals thrive in high co2. Less co2 has caused glacification events and loss of life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Fauna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Fauna
- EForEndeavour 4y ago
  I didn't mention desertification, but habitability - I meant to imply "inhabitable by unprotected humans." The Eocene saw a thermal maximum in which global mean temperature increased by about 6 ºC, and a much wetter climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Evidence_for_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature: > The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3: > Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will prevent most of the tropics from reaching a TW of 35 °C, the limit of human adaptation.
  - Geee 4y ago
    Fair point. How about animals? It seems that many modern mammals, including primates, evolved and thrived during the Eocene. Most of the world today is too cold for humans living without protection, so I'm not completely buying that it would be worse than today. It might require moving around a bit, but not a total catastrophe.