5 ms·

Way ahead of you; I already stopped pretending we'll have a habitable planet by century's end.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
That's pretty out there. "Habitable" is a pretty low bar, but saying that climate change will cause a collapse of global civilization by 2100 isn't nearly as ridiculous.
- baggy_trough 4y ago
  Certainly it is ridiculous. That’s not to say there won’t be significant negative consequences.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Prove it is ridiculous. Collapse is the default fate of any civilization where not actively prevented. Show how it is being actively prevented, not accelerated.
- Daishiman 4y ago
  Have two summers in a row where the vast population of birds and mammals die due to heatstroke and we'll see how ridiculous that is.
samatman 4y ago
That's a pretty unhealthy delusion, and I feel for you, the mental anguish must be considerable. But it's a falsehood, and it becomes a lie when you share it, so maybe keep your delusions to yourself next time.
- Mildlypolite 4y ago
  It's not a falsehood, it's a scenario with a probability, a high probability for some places (the equator) and a lower one for others. We have to consider every scenario, if not we are the one deluding ourselves.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    No, it’s not a scenario with any significant probability. No scientific organization I’m familiar with claims that this might happen.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Saying we won’t have a habitable planet by century's end specifically because of climate change is definitely a falsehood (except for the technical point that 100% and 0% are not real probabilities). Saying some regions won’t be habitable is correct, but it always has been even before the industrial revolution. I certainly expect things to get worse before they get better, but “by century’s end” is too far away for even better/worse to be predictable to high certainty: there are 78 years from now to 2100, and it was only about 73 years between the president of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, saying “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of”[0] and Apollo 11 landing on the moon. What’s going to happen between now and then? A crop of GM phytoplankton with super-photosynthesis that stabilises atmospheric CO2 at 200 ppm? Von Neumann machines disassembling the moon and turning it into a ten billion O’Neill cylinders? A bioweapon that turns all humans stupid? Plain old global thermonuclear war? All of the above? No way to tell. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Thomson https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Thomson
- recuter 4y ago
  How is it a lie, are you a time traveler? He didn't make any claims, he shared his frustration. If you think there's a 0% chance of humans going extinct perhaps you are the delusional one.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  It's only a falsehood if you live in Scandinavia or East Asia. What about the hotter parts of South East Asia which are on the cusp of survivability as is?
- adrr 4y ago
  How can a prediction be a lie? Worst case scenario places like India become inhabitable. India being a nuclear armed country isn't going to stay in place and die.
christkv 4y ago
Climate was way hotter in the Jurassic period and life survived and thrived. Climate change is much more about impact on our current society than the end of the world. https://sciencing.com/climate-jurassic-era-4932.html https://sciencing.com/climate-jurassic-era-4932.html
- guerrilla 4y ago
  They meant habitable by humans.
- adrianN 4y ago
  It's not the temperature that's the problem, it's the rate of change. (And the existence of nuclear weapons.)
- ben_w 4y ago
  That’s not a very strong argument for human habitability (other arguments exist, just not this), because, for example, we’re not cold blooded lizards and the Jurassic is roughly when Pangaea started to break apart.
tejohnso 4y ago
I think that has been a reasonable possibility (on the order of large asteroid collision) since the invention of the atomic bomb. And it became much more likely after they were actually used in war. And even more likely with the insane proliferation. Now we can add climate denialism and global climate state tipping points into the mix. It's getting worse. An opinion shared by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "The [doomsday clock]'s original setting in 1947 was seven minutes to midnight. It has since been set backward eight times and forward 16 times for a total of 24, the farthest from midnight being 17 minutes in 1991, and the nearest being 100 seconds, from 2020 to the present." [doomsday clock]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  If someone tells you that we’re closer to nuclear doom now than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I don’t think you should take their analysis particularly seriously.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I believe the claim is that all risks combined now are slightly greater than the average nuclear risk during the 1953-1960 period. Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis in particular, the Wikipedia page says: > The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday.[citation needed] If someone could add a citation, please do.
- Daishiman 4y ago
  Thermonuclear war is child's play next to global warming.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
2143 4y ago
I just hope I live to see Halley's Comet in 2061.

That's pretty out there. "Habitable" is a pretty low bar, but saying that climate change will cause a collapse of global civilization by 2100 isn't nearly as ridiculous.

baggy_trough 4y ago
Certainly it is ridiculous. That’s not to say there won’t be significant negative consequences.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Prove it is ridiculous. Collapse is the default fate of any civilization where not actively prevented. Show how it is being actively prevented, not accelerated.
Daishiman 4y ago
Have two summers in a row where the vast population of birds and mammals die due to heatstroke and we'll see how ridiculous that is.

samatman 4y ago

That's a pretty unhealthy delusion, and I feel for you, the mental anguish must be considerable. But it's a falsehood, and it becomes a lie when you share it, so maybe keep your delusions to yourself next time.

Mildlypolite 4y ago
It's not a falsehood, it's a scenario with a probability, a high probability for some places (the equator) and a lower one for others. We have to consider every scenario, if not we are the one deluding ourselves.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  No, it’s not a scenario with any significant probability. No scientific organization I’m familiar with claims that this might happen.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Saying we won’t have a habitable planet by century's end specifically because of climate change is definitely a falsehood (except for the technical point that 100% and 0% are not real probabilities). Saying some regions won’t be habitable is correct, but it always has been even before the industrial revolution. I certainly expect things to get worse before they get better, but “by century’s end” is too far away for even better/worse to be predictable to high certainty: there are 78 years from now to 2100, and it was only about 73 years between the president of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, saying “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of”[0] and Apollo 11 landing on the moon. What’s going to happen between now and then? A crop of GM phytoplankton with super-photosynthesis that stabilises atmospheric CO2 at 200 ppm? Von Neumann machines disassembling the moon and turning it into a ten billion O’Neill cylinders? A bioweapon that turns all humans stupid? Plain old global thermonuclear war? All of the above? No way to tell. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Thomson https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Thomson
recuter 4y ago
How is it a lie, are you a time traveler? He didn't make any claims, he shared his frustration. If you think there's a 0% chance of humans going extinct perhaps you are the delusional one.
hackerlight 4y ago
It's only a falsehood if you live in Scandinavia or East Asia. What about the hotter parts of South East Asia which are on the cusp of survivability as is?
adrr 4y ago
How can a prediction be a lie? Worst case scenario places like India become inhabitable. India being a nuclear armed country isn't going to stay in place and die.

christkv 4y ago

Climate was way hotter in the Jurassic period and life survived and thrived. Climate change is much more about impact on our current society than the end of the world. https://sciencing.com/climate-jurassic-era-4932.html https://sciencing.com/climate-jurassic-era-4932.html

guerrilla 4y ago
They meant habitable by humans.
adrianN 4y ago
It's not the temperature that's the problem, it's the rate of change. (And the existence of nuclear weapons.)
ben_w 4y ago
That’s not a very strong argument for human habitability (other arguments exist, just not this), because, for example, we’re not cold blooded lizards and the Jurassic is roughly when Pangaea started to break apart.

tejohnso 4y ago

I think that has been a reasonable possibility (on the order of large asteroid collision) since the invention of the atomic bomb. And it became much more likely after they were actually used in war. And even more likely with the insane proliferation. Now we can add climate denialism and global climate state tipping points into the mix. It's getting worse. An opinion shared by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "The [doomsday clock]'s original setting in 1947 was seven minutes to midnight. It has since been set backward eight times and forward 16 times for a total of 24, the farthest from midnight being 17 minutes in 1991, and the nearest being 100 seconds, from 2020 to the present." [doomsday clock]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
If someone tells you that we’re closer to nuclear doom now than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I don’t think you should take their analysis particularly seriously.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I believe the claim is that all risks combined now are slightly greater than the average nuclear risk during the 1953-1960 period. Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis in particular, the Wikipedia page says: > The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday.[citation needed] If someone could add a citation, please do.
Daishiman 4y ago
Thermonuclear war is child's play next to global warming.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

2143 4y ago

I just hope I live to see Halley's Comet in 2061.