6 ms·

The climate always changes. Always has & always will. No political movement, economic paradigm, or technology will make the climate static. The geomagnetic fiel

The climate always changes. Always has & always will. No political movement, economic paradigm, or technology will make the climate static. The geomagnetic field fluctuations, Sun, the solar system's current cosmological coordinates, cosmological effects are too big of a driver of the climate. Geologically speaking, we have just left a mini-ice age. Our efforts are better invested in adjusting to these inevitable changes.

ajkjk 3y ago
Who cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough." It has no bearing if it changed in the past if we can do something about it not killing most (non-rich) people in the future. Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now. So if your goal is "definitely let's make sure we don't handle this well", then at least, if you're right, you can justify that. Pretty pointless, though, unless your goal is destruction.
- briantakita 3y ago
  > Who cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough." I don't take a nihlist approach. I take a realistic approach. The changes will occur. What will we do about it? Go into a delusion that we can stop the change or take steps to prepare? > Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying it IS HAPPENING & nothing we do will stop it. So what are we going to do? Sacrifice to the gods to stop the inevitable? Good luck with that... I would prefer to mitigate these changes by hardening our infrastructure, utilize tech & social systems to improve quality of life, and address pollution like the toxic sludge byproduct to mine materials for your "renewable" equipment.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    No, you argued that it has happened before, which does not imply that the fact that it is happening now is not anthropogenic this time -- which it obviously is. If you can do work now to make "the planet getting very hot and messed up everyone's lives" take thousands of extra years, during which time it is more livable, why would you not? Obviously you would balance this against other economic and policy concerns, which everyone is, and it comes out way ahead because warming is very bad for everyone. "It has happened in the past, therefore turn your brain off and tell everyone else to stop thinking also." is not a "realistic" approach, it's a delusional one. It doesn't involve a realistic model of the present or the future. It's profoundly unconcerned with any sort of causal model of reality that makes predictions about the future and therefore analyzes what we ought to do based on their expected outcomes.
    - briantakita3 3y ago
      [dead]
- europeanNyan 3y ago
  That wasn't their point at all. The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future. Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different?
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future. It's usually easier to stop doing something than to deal with the consequences of doing something. > Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different? Humans have never faced this kind of change. It will be different because it's not just a different temperatures, it's the collapse of the ecosystem which we rely on for food.
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      How do you know that?
      - Timon3 3y ago
        How do I know what? The earlier, the latter, both?
        t0bia_s 3y ago
        That humans never faced this before and it's collapse of whole ecosystem.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > That humans never faced this before Can you point to any time during the existence of our species with a similar kind of change? > and it's collapse of whole ecosystem. That's mostly based on scientific studies, existing examples of rapid changes in ecosystems, and previous mass extinction events. Do you have any evidence counter to this idea?
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
[flagged]
flatline 3y ago
Yes but it is changing in very specific and problematic ways with well understood causes that are at least partly under our control. We do not understand it perfectly but we don’t need to.
blacksmith_tb 3y ago
That can be 100% true, and humans can still be contributing to the current change? So not only would it be possible and desirable for us to stop contributing, but to try and influence the direction of change in a way that's more beneficial for more of us (which could be reforesting or olivine weathering or something crazy like solar shielding or sulfur dioxide cannons, depending on who you ask).
sebmellen 3y ago
What if it’s all a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Pett#/media/File%3AWhat_if_it's_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Pett#/media/File%3AWhat...
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  Or what if we destroy the world economy and personal freedom/autonomy in the process?
  - sebmellen 3y ago
    If you think protecting the climate will destroy the economy and personal freedom, you’re mistaken. The biggest threat to a thriving world economy with high degrees of personal freedom is climate change.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      > The biggest threat to a thriving world economy with high degrees of personal freedom I would suggest it is lack of low-cost, easily-accessible energy. Energy has been the driving force behind virtually every technological and economic advance in the past century.
      - myshpa 3y ago
        Agree. But extinction of pollinators or key species, extreme temperatures causing mass crop failures, extreme droughts, several meter sea rise or a cascade of tipping points could certainly make some serious damage too.
      - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        Solar PV became the "cheapest source of energy in history" levels 3 years ago in places with low cost of capital, prices have continued to fall and are forecast to keep dropping as we get more experience. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit...
dbingham 3y ago
The rate of change is what matters here. We are causing the climate to change at a staggering rate. Faster than anything ever seen in nature except during cataclysmic events (massive volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, etc). The biosphere will not be able to keep up with these changes and we already know that we are causing a mass extinction event and destabilization of the biosphere. Our food system depends on the biosphere. Our society also depends on the conditions that have been relatively stable for the last several millennia. Sure, there was a mini ice age, but we're talking about a smaller change in climate and far more gradual in that ice age, than what we are currently experiencing and causing. And that mini ice age was enough to cause mass disruption to human societies in areas most impacted by it. Our current human caused climate change - if allowed to continue unabated - is likely to cause disruption on scales that lead to the death of billions of humans and the likely collapse of societies. We cannot ignore the cause of it (us) and simply adapt to the new reality. The way we adapt to this is by changing the behaviors that created it in the first place: We stop burning fossil fuels. That way it stops getting worse, then we work to return the climate to what it was previously, or we work to adapt to our new (now, hopefully, stabilized) reality. We're quickly losing the window to even do that, however, because we're triggering feedback mechanisms that make this change self-replicating. So we likely need to go heavily into carbon removal and fast as well.
piva00 3y ago
> Our efforts are better invested in adjusting to these inevitable changes. Of course. If those changes would happen in a timeframe spanning hundreds of centuries we could dedicate some effort to progressively adapt to them, when it looms to violently happen upon us in the next 50-100 years and it's known it could've been partially avoided I don't think we can just magically wave it away to "it will eventually be solved technologically". It might as well not be, that's the scary part.

ajkjk 3y ago

Who cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough." It has no bearing if it changed in the past if we can do something about it not killing most (non-rich) people in the future. Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now. So if your goal is "definitely let's make sure we don't handle this well", then at least, if you're right, you can justify that. Pretty pointless, though, unless your goal is destruction.

briantakita 3y ago
> Who cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough." I don't take a nihlist approach. I take a realistic approach. The changes will occur. What will we do about it? Go into a delusion that we can stop the change or take steps to prepare? > Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying it IS HAPPENING & nothing we do will stop it. So what are we going to do? Sacrifice to the gods to stop the inevitable? Good luck with that... I would prefer to mitigate these changes by hardening our infrastructure, utilize tech & social systems to improve quality of life, and address pollution like the toxic sludge byproduct to mine materials for your "renewable" equipment.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  No, you argued that it has happened before, which does not imply that the fact that it is happening now is not anthropogenic this time -- which it obviously is. If you can do work now to make "the planet getting very hot and messed up everyone's lives" take thousands of extra years, during which time it is more livable, why would you not? Obviously you would balance this against other economic and policy concerns, which everyone is, and it comes out way ahead because warming is very bad for everyone. "It has happened in the past, therefore turn your brain off and tell everyone else to stop thinking also." is not a "realistic" approach, it's a delusional one. It doesn't involve a realistic model of the present or the future. It's profoundly unconcerned with any sort of causal model of reality that makes predictions about the future and therefore analyzes what we ought to do based on their expected outcomes.
  - briantakita3 3y ago
    [dead]
europeanNyan 3y ago
That wasn't their point at all. The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future. Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different?
- Timon3 3y ago
  > The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future. It's usually easier to stop doing something than to deal with the consequences of doing something. > Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different? Humans have never faced this kind of change. It will be different because it's not just a different temperatures, it's the collapse of the ecosystem which we rely on for food.
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    How do you know that?
    - Timon3 3y ago
      How do I know what? The earlier, the latter, both?
      - t0bia_s 3y ago
        That humans never faced this before and it's collapse of whole ecosystem.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > That humans never faced this before Can you point to any time during the existence of our species with a similar kind of change? > and it's collapse of whole ecosystem. That's mostly based on scientific studies, existing examples of rapid changes in ecosystems, and previous mass extinction events. Do you have any evidence counter to this idea?

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

[flagged]

flatline 3y ago

Yes but it is changing in very specific and problematic ways with well understood causes that are at least partly under our control. We do not understand it perfectly but we don’t need to.

blacksmith_tb 3y ago

That can be 100% true, and humans can still be contributing to the current change? So not only would it be possible and desirable for us to stop contributing, but to try and influence the direction of change in a way that's more beneficial for more of us (which could be reforesting or olivine weathering or something crazy like solar shielding or sulfur dioxide cannons, depending on who you ask).

sebmellen 3y ago

What if it’s all a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Pett#/media/File%3AWhat_if_it's_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Pett#/media/File%3AWhat...

HideousKojima 3y ago
Or what if we destroy the world economy and personal freedom/autonomy in the process?
- sebmellen 3y ago
  If you think protecting the climate will destroy the economy and personal freedom, you’re mistaken. The biggest threat to a thriving world economy with high degrees of personal freedom is climate change.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    > The biggest threat to a thriving world economy with high degrees of personal freedom I would suggest it is lack of low-cost, easily-accessible energy. Energy has been the driving force behind virtually every technological and economic advance in the past century.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Agree. But extinction of pollinators or key species, extreme temperatures causing mass crop failures, extreme droughts, several meter sea rise or a cascade of tipping points could certainly make some serious damage too.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      Solar PV became the "cheapest source of energy in history" levels 3 years ago in places with low cost of capital, prices have continued to fall and are forecast to keep dropping as we get more experience. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit...

dbingham 3y ago

The rate of change is what matters here. We are causing the climate to change at a staggering rate. Faster than anything ever seen in nature except during cataclysmic events (massive volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, etc). The biosphere will not be able to keep up with these changes and we already know that we are causing a mass extinction event and destabilization of the biosphere. Our food system depends on the biosphere. Our society also depends on the conditions that have been relatively stable for the last several millennia. Sure, there was a mini ice age, but we're talking about a smaller change in climate and far more gradual in that ice age, than what we are currently experiencing and causing. And that mini ice age was enough to cause mass disruption to human societies in areas most impacted by it. Our current human caused climate change - if allowed to continue unabated - is likely to cause disruption on scales that lead to the death of billions of humans and the likely collapse of societies. We cannot ignore the cause of it (us) and simply adapt to the new reality. The way we adapt to this is by changing the behaviors that created it in the first place: We stop burning fossil fuels. That way it stops getting worse, then we work to return the climate to what it was previously, or we work to adapt to our new (now, hopefully, stabilized) reality. We're quickly losing the window to even do that, however, because we're triggering feedback mechanisms that make this change self-replicating. So we likely need to go heavily into carbon removal and fast as well.

piva00 3y ago

> Our efforts are better invested in adjusting to these inevitable changes. Of course. If those changes would happen in a timeframe spanning hundreds of centuries we could dedicate some effort to progressively adapt to them, when it looms to violently happen upon us in the next 50-100 years and it's known it could've been partially avoided I don't think we can just magically wave it away to "it will eventually be solved technologically". It might as well not be, that's the scary part.