4 ms·
This chart is terrifying! It reminds me of the XKCD temperature chart: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
by albertgoeswoof 3y ago
This chart is terrifying!
It reminds me of the XKCD temperature chart: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- jansan 3y agoWhy? What will be the consequences besides the two mentioned in the aricle (sharks may become more aggressive, and some fish and wales may move in search of cooler waters)?
- inetknght 3y agowarmer waters = less oxygen less oxygen = less life less life = less food less food = less human
- Longhanks 3y agoI’d argue that "less human" is a net positive for Earth.
- anonymoushn 3y agoYou first :)
- blooalien 3y agoHow about the people who actually caused (and are still actively causing, and fighting to continue causing) the problem go first, yeah?
- wongarsu 3y agoSo nuke most of the Western World? The couple still-standing cold war bunkers should be enough to house the couple of deserving offgriders and climate activists that can be judged innocent. And yes, we would also have to kill part of China, especially the cities
- blooalien 3y agoOh yeah, because using nukes always works out for the best for everyone involved, yeah? Let's just do that. Much faster and more efficient than waiting for the 1% to boil us slowly to death.
- wongarsu 3y agoIt's more efficient than trying to put a billion people (give or take a couple) to the guillotine or the electrical chair, and the side effect of nuclear winter didn't seem that bad to me given the context. Might cause some food shortages though
- jjav 3y ago> So nuke most of the Western World? This thread is silly. To reduce the world population you don't need to kill anyone at all. You simply look for ways to reduce birth rates.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- techdmn 3y agoOf course the trouble is those same people have been capturing enough value out of the destructive process that they will surely go last. I suspect this is no small part of the reason we're in the fix we're in.
- revscat 3y agoA war is required but discussion of it is forbidden.
- blooalien 3y agoYou're sadly probably right on both counts. (The second part for sure, judging by you gettin' downvoted to oblivion.)
- gottorf 3y agoThe very existence of something affects its environment. Even the caveman burned sticks for warmth; would you say he is the "cause" of "the problem" of increased carbon emissions? Because unarguably he did release carbon into the atmosphere. So you'd have to be very specific about the "cause" and the "problem". The electricity that feeds my computer allowing me to type this comment comes from the local power plant, which is fossil-fuel based (coal and natural gas). Shall I be put to death? Or am I far enough removed, and instead perhaps the CEO of the utility company? Or considering that they answer to the shareholders, maybe anybody who owns shares? Considering that it's a publicly-traded company that serves roughly 4% of the landmass of the continental US, that's quite a lot of people. In the end, nobody burns polluting coal and gas for fun. They do it because it's the economical choice; if we could all have abundant clean energy from fusion power at the wave of a wand, we would do it. The fact remains that "problems" cannot be "solved" as much as they need to be weighed against the tradeoffs; there is no free lunch, and the scarce time and resources that can be spent "solving" something can be equally spent somewhere else. I'm afraid that the desire of some people to classify the problem of the changing climate as a categorical imperative that must be "solved" at any cost does not change the underlying reality, which is that "at any cost" is an impossible thing in real life.
- jjav 3y ago> nobody burns polluting coal and gas for fun. Look up rolling coal. But yes, most people don't.
- randomdata 3y agoless human = less greenhouse gas emissions less greenhouse gas emissions = less greenhouse gas less greenhouse gas = cooler waters Seems the problem is eventually self correcting.
- ljf 3y agoTrue though there is a risk that before we get to the end of the 2nd step on your flow, that loads of methane is released from across the currently frozen plains of Asia/Russia - along with more CO2 released from more regular wild fires. The earth could go on releasing greenhouse gases even when (if) we stop releasing, if it gets too warm.
- randomdata 3y agoThere is only so much methane trapped, and the warmer climate is said to increase the chances of wildfire, so it too will eventually reach a tipping point where the forest growth can't keep up.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ethbr0 3y ago... dinosaur eats man. Woman inherits the earth. (Best line delivery in the movie)
- defrost 3y agoSlow increase until there is little to no sea ice in winter . . . and then ... oh shit. The context is that atmospheric gases are trapping more and more solar energy. The same unit of energy that transforms a mass of zero degree ice to zero degree water can also transform that same mass of zero degree water to ~ 76 degree Celsius water (over two thirds of the way from almost ice to boiling). Once there's significantly less ice to buffer the increasing solar energy the water gets much hotter much faster. ADDED: It's unfair to savagely downvote my parent jansan for asking "Why?" Not everybody is across the potential consequences here.
- ChatGTP 3y agoProperly terrifying an XKCD don't seem to mix?
- jacquesm 3y agoIf you like terrifying graphs you will love this one, click 'antarctic' after the page loads: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-...
- bobmaxup 3y agohttps://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/08/02/the-rapid-loss-of-antarctic-sea-ice-brings-grim-scenarios-into-view https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/08/02/the-rapi...