6 ms·

Also: more food, more plants, less deserts, more carbon captured.

by alfor 3y ago

croes 3y ago
How? Higher temperatures, less glaciers, more extreme weather, dry lakes and rivers, more deserts. It's a complex system and we don't know how it ends. We could become food too for fungi and insects that spread because of higher temperatures.
- beerpls 3y ago
  The Earth has many systems which help maintain a balance. It’s happened many times in the past Perhaps whatever is happening now is too extreme for it to do that, but it seems unlikely. The ecosystems of the planet share many deep symbioses I know i’ll be downvoted, and i’m expecting no one will actually address what i’ve said while doing it. There’s no real conservation in this topic anymore.
  - croes 3y ago
    But in the past we weren't 8 billion people who travel around the world. Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
  - 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago
    Nice Freudian slip!
  - jgwil2 3y ago
    Nobody is suggesting that the Earth itself is under threat. The biosphere will survive but humans, especially those in poorer regions, stand to suffer greatly, and many consider it a moral imperative to mitigate that suffering. The best way to do that would seem to be avoiding the most rapid and dramatic climatic changes in order to give people and ecosystems time to adapt.
    - alfor 3y ago
      The poor are affected now by our current energy policy. We should save the poor now instead of the hypothetical poor impacted in the future. In fact the climate change policies reveal that we don’t care at all about the poor as we would save far more if we were concern about them instead of CO2. The more you research this the more you will find the whole movement disingenuous at best.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - beerpls 3y ago
      Let’s be real, the poorest are only not suffering as it is because of all the marvels of the industrialization onward It’s somewhat ironic to say that we need to stop the systems which have helped so many poor people so that we don’t cause harm to poor people
      - jgwil2 3y ago
        The benefits of industrialization have accrued primarily to the rich; the negative consequences will be borne largely by the poor. But in any case no one is seriously trying to stop industrial civilization; we are (slowly, inadequately) trying to transition it to more sustainable foundations.
  - alfor 3y ago
    I agree with you. The threat is far overblow. Slowly the tide is turning and more people start to see that it’s not the end of the world. Mostly a positive feedback loop of media, government, research that all finance each others. Frankly with AI and nuclear threat at this moment I don’t know why people are concern with CO2, the timeline is so far away.
- alfor 3y ago
  How? CO2 is hard to get for plants there is only a tiny amount in the air (0.04% or 4/10000) and carbon is the building block for life. Through history plant have consumed all the carbon they could in the air and much of it ended up stuck in the earth crust (mostly coal but also gas and oil) As we raise the level of CO2 plants thrive, especially in dry condition where the plants loose water as they open their pore to get CO2. So more CO2 = plant that grow in more dry condition aka desert. Everything is getting greener and as a result CO2 get captured. Now that doesn’t mean we should be stupid about it, at some point it’s a crazy experiment, but it’s not the end of the world as the media like to report. With Solar, wind, EV all on exponential path of growth there is nothing to fear about climate change anymore, maybe if we could find a way to slow down China expansion of coal plants that would make a dent, but I understand that they need it. Look into Tony Seba (for renewable growth) and Bjorn Lomborg for intelligent priorities for the world. If we are really concern about the earth and the poor there is far, far better way to spend our money and time, but maybe it’s not as catchy as "climate change".
  - croes 3y ago
    >plant that grow in more dry condition aka dessert. The CO2 may be evenly distributed in the atmosphere but water isn't. Changes in sea currents and the jet streams can make desserts green but also turn green place into desserts. Higher temperatures mean wider spreading of disease transmitting insects like mosquitos or the fungi that adapt to higher temperatures so they can now survive in humans, add these new threats to other problems like multidrug resistance of bacterias and our future isn't as bright as you picture it. Corona was kind of a warning shot, something deadlier could have been much more devastating.
    - alfor 3y ago
      The current media narrative is to exaggerate all the downside and showing none of the upside or natural restorative patterns. If we stop CO2 production (will happen thanks to entrepreneurship and some incentives) nature will soak it up rapidly. Corona is not natural, it was manmade. All point in that direction. If we want to prevent this from happening again we should stop experimenting with virus (not happening). So yes, I agree we will probably see something worse, but not because of climate change.

Also: more food, more plants, less deserts, more carbon captured.

by alfor 3y ago

Also: more food, more plants, less deserts, more carbon captured.

How? Higher temperatures, less glaciers, more extreme weather, dry lakes and rivers, more deserts. It's a complex system and we don't know how it ends. We could become food too for fungi and insects that spread because of higher temperatures.

beerpls 3y ago
The Earth has many systems which help maintain a balance. It’s happened many times in the past Perhaps whatever is happening now is too extreme for it to do that, but it seems unlikely. The ecosystems of the planet share many deep symbioses I know i’ll be downvoted, and i’m expecting no one will actually address what i’ve said while doing it. There’s no real conservation in this topic anymore.
- croes 3y ago
  But in the past we weren't 8 billion people who travel around the world. Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago
  Nice Freudian slip!
- jgwil2 3y ago
  Nobody is suggesting that the Earth itself is under threat. The biosphere will survive but humans, especially those in poorer regions, stand to suffer greatly, and many consider it a moral imperative to mitigate that suffering. The best way to do that would seem to be avoiding the most rapid and dramatic climatic changes in order to give people and ecosystems time to adapt.
  - alfor 3y ago
    The poor are affected now by our current energy policy. We should save the poor now instead of the hypothetical poor impacted in the future. In fact the climate change policies reveal that we don’t care at all about the poor as we would save far more if we were concern about them instead of CO2. The more you research this the more you will find the whole movement disingenuous at best.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - beerpls 3y ago
    Let’s be real, the poorest are only not suffering as it is because of all the marvels of the industrialization onward It’s somewhat ironic to say that we need to stop the systems which have helped so many poor people so that we don’t cause harm to poor people
    - jgwil2 3y ago
      The benefits of industrialization have accrued primarily to the rich; the negative consequences will be borne largely by the poor. But in any case no one is seriously trying to stop industrial civilization; we are (slowly, inadequately) trying to transition it to more sustainable foundations.
- alfor 3y ago
  I agree with you. The threat is far overblow. Slowly the tide is turning and more people start to see that it’s not the end of the world. Mostly a positive feedback loop of media, government, research that all finance each others. Frankly with AI and nuclear threat at this moment I don’t know why people are concern with CO2, the timeline is so far away.
alfor 3y ago
How? CO2 is hard to get for plants there is only a tiny amount in the air (0.04% or 4/10000) and carbon is the building block for life. Through history plant have consumed all the carbon they could in the air and much of it ended up stuck in the earth crust (mostly coal but also gas and oil) As we raise the level of CO2 plants thrive, especially in dry condition where the plants loose water as they open their pore to get CO2. So more CO2 = plant that grow in more dry condition aka desert. Everything is getting greener and as a result CO2 get captured. Now that doesn’t mean we should be stupid about it, at some point it’s a crazy experiment, but it’s not the end of the world as the media like to report. With Solar, wind, EV all on exponential path of growth there is nothing to fear about climate change anymore, maybe if we could find a way to slow down China expansion of coal plants that would make a dent, but I understand that they need it. Look into Tony Seba (for renewable growth) and Bjorn Lomborg for intelligent priorities for the world. If we are really concern about the earth and the poor there is far, far better way to spend our money and time, but maybe it’s not as catchy as "climate change".
- croes 3y ago
  >plant that grow in more dry condition aka dessert. The CO2 may be evenly distributed in the atmosphere but water isn't. Changes in sea currents and the jet streams can make desserts green but also turn green place into desserts. Higher temperatures mean wider spreading of disease transmitting insects like mosquitos or the fungi that adapt to higher temperatures so they can now survive in humans, add these new threats to other problems like multidrug resistance of bacterias and our future isn't as bright as you picture it. Corona was kind of a warning shot, something deadlier could have been much more devastating.
  - alfor 3y ago
    The current media narrative is to exaggerate all the downside and showing none of the upside or natural restorative patterns. If we stop CO2 production (will happen thanks to entrepreneurship and some incentives) nature will soak it up rapidly. Corona is not natural, it was manmade. All point in that direction. If we want to prevent this from happening again we should stop experimenting with virus (not happening). So yes, I agree we will probably see something worse, but not because of climate change.