4 ms·

1. We are currently in an ice age (defined as both poles covered in ice) 2. A few degrees the wrong direction and the whole globe turns to ice. 3. A warmer ea

1. We are currently in an ice age (defined as both poles covered in ice) 2. A few degrees the wrong direction and the whole globe turns to ice. 3. A warmer earth with more carbon increases crop yields and actually has positive effects. The downside might be people need to move inland. 4. Much more concerning is the chemicals we are releasing into the atmosphere — I’d be seriously concerned here.

zopa 4y ago
> The downside might be people need to move inland. There's a lot of human suffering underneath that anodyne phrase. Deadly storms and refugee camps and all the rest. The trouble isn't the final temperature, it's the speed of the change. Given tens of thousands of years ecosystems can adapt. Change the climate in a few decades, though, and many species will just die. We aren't going to know all the consequences of that biodiversity loss until it's too late to fix. You're absolutely right however that there's a narrow band of temperatures consistent with a habitable Earth. Which is why research into tools we might need to stay in that range is a good thing.
fritztastic 4y ago
It's not just about temp change and ocean levels- it's the shifts in climate affecting ecosystems (for example, speeding up desertification in some places and bringing extreme weather to others). Sure, people can move inland, but moving inland isn't going to help the ecosystems. Humans are very adaptable, we have technology and skills to handle rapidly changing parameters- other organisms can't. Changes of salinity in water, drier soil, excessive rain, first/last frost, etc. are happening too fast and causing widespread destruction to and collapse of ecosystems worldwide- the affected flora/fauna aren't like us- they simply won't survive.
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  Good; natural ecosystems re a moral hazard, anyway- a giant, self-perpetuating torture dungeon. If somebody created predator species, or botflies, or ringworms, you'd have them executed for crimes against nervous systems. I vote, then, to execute natural selection. It's our duty to save all living things capable of pain from their fates.

zopa 4y ago

> The downside might be people need to move inland. There's a lot of human suffering underneath that anodyne phrase. Deadly storms and refugee camps and all the rest. The trouble isn't the final temperature, it's the speed of the change. Given tens of thousands of years ecosystems can adapt. Change the climate in a few decades, though, and many species will just die. We aren't going to know all the consequences of that biodiversity loss until it's too late to fix. You're absolutely right however that there's a narrow band of temperatures consistent with a habitable Earth. Which is why research into tools we might need to stay in that range is a good thing.

fritztastic 4y ago

It's not just about temp change and ocean levels- it's the shifts in climate affecting ecosystems (for example, speeding up desertification in some places and bringing extreme weather to others). Sure, people can move inland, but moving inland isn't going to help the ecosystems. Humans are very adaptable, we have technology and skills to handle rapidly changing parameters- other organisms can't. Changes of salinity in water, drier soil, excessive rain, first/last frost, etc. are happening too fast and causing widespread destruction to and collapse of ecosystems worldwide- the affected flora/fauna aren't like us- they simply won't survive.

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
Good; natural ecosystems re a moral hazard, anyway- a giant, self-perpetuating torture dungeon. If somebody created predator species, or botflies, or ringworms, you'd have them executed for crimes against nervous systems. I vote, then, to execute natural selection. It's our duty to save all living things capable of pain from their fates.