4 ms·

> A burning natural world set to end between 2050 and 2100 Eh, climate change is a really big problem but you can't go around saying "the world is set to end

> A burning natural world set to end between 2050 and 2100 Eh, climate change is a really big problem but you can't go around saying "the world is set to end between 2050 and 2100", it's obviously untrue and demotivating.

runarberg 3y ago
Most recent IPCC report stated that we are very likely to hit 1.5° in the next five years. If all our current policies hold, and we don’t continue to increase our annual emissions we will likely be looking at 2.7° - 3.2° at the end of this century. At 3° the oceans die. I think it is safe to say that the world as we know it is very likely coming to an end between 2050 and 2100. We will be living in a far more inhospitable planet in 2050.
- interroboink 3y ago
  > At 3° the oceans die. I appreciate that it's hard to communicate fuzzy concepts with lots of unknowns succinctly, but this seems overly-alarmist and simplistic to me. Or maybe I'm wrong; do you have some reputable sources? Here's one of mine[1], indicating (paraphrased) "5° by 2100 would result in a mass extinction in the next 300 years." And I'd note that even mass extinction is not the same as "the oceans die." Agreed about big changes to "the world as we know it", though. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-warn-of-looming-mass-ocean-extinction/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-warn-o...
  - uoaei 3y ago
    * sharks and bat rays in the SF bay were dying of a brain fungus that resulted from decreased salinity from the excessive rain we got a couple months ago * the size and severity of algal blooms are increasing across the world * this year's crab season was delayed (initially predicted to be nonexistent) because the ocean currents and especially the depth of cold waters changed so drastically from last year etc., etc. These examples are only from this year. We could also point to starfish dissolving, coral bleaching, etc. which have been going on longer. Temperature is only an indicator, but there are many other nth-order effects which result from the changes to the climate that also severely disrupt life processes. We can be sure that the ocean won't "die", but if biodiversity continues to tank the way it has been, we will see an accelerating rate of decline in the health of the oceans and consequently the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean (somewhere around 1 billion people). Knock-on effects are hard to conceptualize but well worth fully exploring.
    - badpun 3y ago
      > people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean (somewhere around 1 billion people). Can you give a source on that? Thanks.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        The World Bank says "Billions of people worldwide —especially the world’s poorest— rely on healthy oceans as a source of jobs and food" https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/oceans-fisheries-and-coastal-economies https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/oceans-fisheries-and-coas... The UN says the oceans are "the main source of protein for more than a billion people around the world". https://www.un.org/en/observances/oceans-day https://www.un.org/en/observances/oceans-day
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- thanatos519 3y ago
  I'll be astounded if we make it to 2050.
  - pc86 3y ago
    What a ridiculous statement.
    - 29athrowaway 3y ago
      It makes more sense than you think. Before 2050 you will know that the Santa Claus that keeps putting food on your table is not real. Topsoil depletion, groundwater depletion, overfishing, pollinators and insects dying, etc. And best of all: methane permafrost melting. In the best case scenario we will all end up eating soylent green.
- tyjen 3y ago
  Oceans will not die, their biological makeup will change and adapt to new conditions.
  - skeaker 3y ago
    Sure, but the change will be slow, and humans are fast. By the time that comes through, it won't be of use to us. Even if it were fast, there's no guarantee that it will be just as useful to us after the change, or of any use at all. Just because the oceans will still technically be alive in some sense does not mean that they will be as lively or at all the same as what we have now.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      It is hardly even technically correct. Nobody disputes calling the late permian extinction event The Great Dying, even though technically not everything died. Life was disrupted in an unprecedented way, such that people agree this name is fitting. The same is true of a 3° horror scenario.
  - dayjaby 3y ago
    Just that the adaptation process might be too slow. I don't think the speed of evolution can keep up with us throwing new kinds of garbage into the ocean. It's the same with mono-cultural farmlands. By reducing the habitation areas of animals, the population becomes so small that thinking "they just have to adapt" becomes a ridiculous statement.
gloryjulio 3y ago
I agree that its a ridiculous description. But as a mentophor, I can imagine at that time the life is like burning in despair
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  I have expressly heard conservative friends use such exaggerations and metaphors as "proof" that global warming is a lie liberals are spreading because they hate freedom (or something like that).

runarberg 3y ago

Most recent IPCC report stated that we are very likely to hit 1.5° in the next five years. If all our current policies hold, and we don’t continue to increase our annual emissions we will likely be looking at 2.7° - 3.2° at the end of this century. At 3° the oceans die. I think it is safe to say that the world as we know it is very likely coming to an end between 2050 and 2100. We will be living in a far more inhospitable planet in 2050.

interroboink 3y ago
> At 3° the oceans die. I appreciate that it's hard to communicate fuzzy concepts with lots of unknowns succinctly, but this seems overly-alarmist and simplistic to me. Or maybe I'm wrong; do you have some reputable sources? Here's one of mine[1], indicating (paraphrased) "5° by 2100 would result in a mass extinction in the next 300 years." And I'd note that even mass extinction is not the same as "the oceans die." Agreed about big changes to "the world as we know it", though. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-warn-of-looming-mass-ocean-extinction/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-warn-o...
- uoaei 3y ago
  * sharks and bat rays in the SF bay were dying of a brain fungus that resulted from decreased salinity from the excessive rain we got a couple months ago * the size and severity of algal blooms are increasing across the world * this year's crab season was delayed (initially predicted to be nonexistent) because the ocean currents and especially the depth of cold waters changed so drastically from last year etc., etc. These examples are only from this year. We could also point to starfish dissolving, coral bleaching, etc. which have been going on longer. Temperature is only an indicator, but there are many other nth-order effects which result from the changes to the climate that also severely disrupt life processes. We can be sure that the ocean won't "die", but if biodiversity continues to tank the way it has been, we will see an accelerating rate of decline in the health of the oceans and consequently the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean (somewhere around 1 billion people). Knock-on effects are hard to conceptualize but well worth fully exploring.
  - badpun 3y ago
    > people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean (somewhere around 1 billion people). Can you give a source on that? Thanks.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      The World Bank says "Billions of people worldwide —especially the world’s poorest— rely on healthy oceans as a source of jobs and food" https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/oceans-fisheries-and-coastal-economies https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/oceans-fisheries-and-coas... The UN says the oceans are "the main source of protein for more than a billion people around the world". https://www.un.org/en/observances/oceans-day https://www.un.org/en/observances/oceans-day
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
thanatos519 3y ago
I'll be astounded if we make it to 2050.
- pc86 3y ago
  What a ridiculous statement.
  - 29athrowaway 3y ago
    It makes more sense than you think. Before 2050 you will know that the Santa Claus that keeps putting food on your table is not real. Topsoil depletion, groundwater depletion, overfishing, pollinators and insects dying, etc. And best of all: methane permafrost melting. In the best case scenario we will all end up eating soylent green.
tyjen 3y ago
Oceans will not die, their biological makeup will change and adapt to new conditions.
- skeaker 3y ago
  Sure, but the change will be slow, and humans are fast. By the time that comes through, it won't be of use to us. Even if it were fast, there's no guarantee that it will be just as useful to us after the change, or of any use at all. Just because the oceans will still technically be alive in some sense does not mean that they will be as lively or at all the same as what we have now.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    It is hardly even technically correct. Nobody disputes calling the late permian extinction event The Great Dying, even though technically not everything died. Life was disrupted in an unprecedented way, such that people agree this name is fitting. The same is true of a 3° horror scenario.
- dayjaby 3y ago
  Just that the adaptation process might be too slow. I don't think the speed of evolution can keep up with us throwing new kinds of garbage into the ocean. It's the same with mono-cultural farmlands. By reducing the habitation areas of animals, the population becomes so small that thinking "they just have to adapt" becomes a ridiculous statement.

gloryjulio 3y ago

I agree that its a ridiculous description. But as a mentophor, I can imagine at that time the life is like burning in despair

tasty_freeze 3y ago
I have expressly heard conservative friends use such exaggerations and metaphors as "proof" that global warming is a lie liberals are spreading because they hate freedom (or something like that).