4 ms·

It's not a continuum either. There are tipping points: think of the ice sheets all melting, the sea levels rising to the point where the coasts of continents ar

by lapcat 3y ago

It's not a continuum either. There are tipping points: think of the ice sheets all melting, the sea levels rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped. Moreover, continually adding energy to the system makes it more chaotic, engendering abrupt and unpredictable shifts. We can't necessarily "choose" the consequences in some kind of orderly manner, as if from a menu.

AlwaysRock 3y ago
We also have options that are unpopular/seem bad right now but may not in the future, like solar geoengineering via releasing specific compounds into the atmospheric. Something like that could also likely be achieved, or at least put into motion, by a single desperate nation.
- lapcat 3y ago
  Was this supposed to make me feel better? The options "seem bad" in the same way that volcanic eruptions seem bad; i.e., they are actually bad. A single deperate nation could also put into motion a nuclear war.
  - Ringz 3y ago
    When one looks at the history of human interventions in ecosystems, one cannot be optimistic. Whether it’s about defending against invasive species or restoring ecosystems to their “original state,” our limited understanding of complex ecosystems inevitably leads to interventions with negative side effects.
  - AlwaysRock 3y ago
    > Maybe time has already run out, and it's too late to prevent the terrible consequences. My point is that there are options for the future. Even if they are not palatable ones. It's not as cut and dry as global warming has already started, it is too late to fix it or mitigate it, and we are all fucked no mater what.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > My point is that there are options for the future. Even if they are not palatable ones. You really need to elaborate about the "not palatable" aspect. What I've heard are only extremely dubious and unproven ideas with possible consequences as bad or worse than the current consequences. You make it sound like the problem is just public acceptance, but that's not the real problem with the so-called "options". There are no magic beans here.
      - AlwaysRock 3y ago
        It's very much proven that our atmosphere can be impacted differently by different gasses. We don't have a fix it now button. But we are also not on a downward spiral with zero options. The problem is largely with public acceptance. We've been negatively impacting our atmosphere for a very long time. Any and every half effort measure that has been taken to mitigate or reverse the damage has failed. The damage continues. It seems much more likely, and makes a lot more sense, to me for us to focus on large scale efforts that might have an immediate and actual impact. Instead of hoping that tomorrow maybe people will start to listen and everyone will give up eating meat, corporations will go carbon zero, and green energy will become the default. If climate change continues, which it seems like it certainly will, someone/some nation state will attempt solar geoengineering. I'd rather us be 25+ years into researching how to safely and effectively do it than have a small desperate people do it as a last hope. Is it dangerous? Absolutely. Does it seem scary and even stupid right now? Sure. 100%. But it sounds like a better option than watching life slowly die out while saying I told you so...
basil-rash 3y ago
> rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped Then it’s not a coast, it’s underwater. The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do. Also worth noting the sea level is actually falling relative to land level in many areas, especially towards the poles. What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. > People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do. Oh yeah, no problem. Please tell the billion or so people who live in coastal areas that it's totally fine. > What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles. Because the land and infrastructure there is surely fantastic. I suppose those people don't need, you know, food or water, for example? But ignoring the geological and ecological problems for the moment, consider the political problems. We're already driving ourselves crazy over a relatively small amount of immigration, and you're saying it's fine that a billion or two people are going to move—or at least try to move—into different countries? I'm guessing they won't be welcomed with open arms.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    > Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. The political problems will sort themselves out (literally people problems), and the infrastructure will be built to accommodate the changing demographics. People move, people build. This is basic stuff.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. People who lives on the coasts don't have to move every second of every day, month, year, etc., due to the coasts moving. In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving. > literally people problems Climate change is a people problem. As George Carlin joked, "There's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked!" > This is basic stuff. No, your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory.
maxerickson 3y ago
Global warming is a result of the set point of the system going up more than cumulative addition of energy. The sun absolutely blasts the planet with energy and the planet radiates away most of it. Global warming is shifting the amount of energy in the system when those things are in balance.
goodSteveramos 3y ago
On a 10,000 year time scale, Earth’s climate was insanely more stable before permanent ice caps formed for the first time 3 million years ago
- lapcat 3y ago
  > permanent ice caps formed for the first time 3 million years ago This is flat out false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet#In_geologic_timescales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet#In_geologic_timescal...
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Technically? If you count Antarctica then yes it was more like 30 million years ago. The massive northern hemisphere ice sheets are much more recent. The Late Cenozoic Ice Age,[5][6] or Antarctic Glaciation,[7][8] began 34 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing.[5] It is Earth's current ice age or icehouse period. Its beginning is marked by the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets. In the last three million years, glaciations have spread to the northern hemisphere. It commenced with Greenland becoming increasingly covered by an ice sheet in late Pliocene (2.9-2.58 Ma ago)[11] During the Pleistocene Epoch (starting 2.58 Ma ago), the Quaternary glaciation developed with decreasing mean temperatures and increasing amplitudes between glacials and interglacials. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene, large areas of northern North America and northern Eurasia have been covered by ice sheets.

by lapcat 3y ago

AlwaysRock 3y ago

We also have options that are unpopular/seem bad right now but may not in the future, like solar geoengineering via releasing specific compounds into the atmospheric. Something like that could also likely be achieved, or at least put into motion, by a single desperate nation.

lapcat 3y ago
Was this supposed to make me feel better? The options "seem bad" in the same way that volcanic eruptions seem bad; i.e., they are actually bad. A single deperate nation could also put into motion a nuclear war.
- Ringz 3y ago
  When one looks at the history of human interventions in ecosystems, one cannot be optimistic. Whether it’s about defending against invasive species or restoring ecosystems to their “original state,” our limited understanding of complex ecosystems inevitably leads to interventions with negative side effects.
- AlwaysRock 3y ago
  > Maybe time has already run out, and it's too late to prevent the terrible consequences. My point is that there are options for the future. Even if they are not palatable ones. It's not as cut and dry as global warming has already started, it is too late to fix it or mitigate it, and we are all fucked no mater what.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > My point is that there are options for the future. Even if they are not palatable ones. You really need to elaborate about the "not palatable" aspect. What I've heard are only extremely dubious and unproven ideas with possible consequences as bad or worse than the current consequences. You make it sound like the problem is just public acceptance, but that's not the real problem with the so-called "options". There are no magic beans here.
    - AlwaysRock 3y ago
      It's very much proven that our atmosphere can be impacted differently by different gasses. We don't have a fix it now button. But we are also not on a downward spiral with zero options. The problem is largely with public acceptance. We've been negatively impacting our atmosphere for a very long time. Any and every half effort measure that has been taken to mitigate or reverse the damage has failed. The damage continues. It seems much more likely, and makes a lot more sense, to me for us to focus on large scale efforts that might have an immediate and actual impact. Instead of hoping that tomorrow maybe people will start to listen and everyone will give up eating meat, corporations will go carbon zero, and green energy will become the default. If climate change continues, which it seems like it certainly will, someone/some nation state will attempt solar geoengineering. I'd rather us be 25+ years into researching how to safely and effectively do it than have a small desperate people do it as a last hope. Is it dangerous? Absolutely. Does it seem scary and even stupid right now? Sure. 100%. But it sounds like a better option than watching life slowly die out while saying I told you so...

basil-rash 3y ago

> rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped Then it’s not a coast, it’s underwater. The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do. Also worth noting the sea level is actually falling relative to land level in many areas, especially towards the poles. What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles.

lapcat 3y ago
> The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. > People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do. Oh yeah, no problem. Please tell the billion or so people who live in coastal areas that it's totally fine. > What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles. Because the land and infrastructure there is surely fantastic. I suppose those people don't need, you know, food or water, for example? But ignoring the geological and ecological problems for the moment, consider the political problems. We're already driving ourselves crazy over a relatively small amount of immigration, and you're saying it's fine that a billion or two people are going to move—or at least try to move—into different countries? I'm guessing they won't be welcomed with open arms.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  > Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. The political problems will sort themselves out (literally people problems), and the infrastructure will be built to accommodate the changing demographics. People move, people build. This is basic stuff.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. People who lives on the coasts don't have to move every second of every day, month, year, etc., due to the coasts moving. In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving. > literally people problems Climate change is a people problem. As George Carlin joked, "There's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked!" > This is basic stuff. No, your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory.

maxerickson 3y ago

Global warming is a result of the set point of the system going up more than cumulative addition of energy. The sun absolutely blasts the planet with energy and the planet radiates away most of it. Global warming is shifting the amount of energy in the system when those things are in balance.

goodSteveramos 3y ago

On a 10,000 year time scale, Earth’s climate was insanely more stable before permanent ice caps formed for the first time 3 million years ago

lapcat 3y ago
> permanent ice caps formed for the first time 3 million years ago This is flat out false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet#In_geologic_timescales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet#In_geologic_timescal...
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Technically? If you count Antarctica then yes it was more like 30 million years ago. The massive northern hemisphere ice sheets are much more recent. The Late Cenozoic Ice Age,[5][6] or Antarctic Glaciation,[7][8] began 34 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing.[5] It is Earth's current ice age or icehouse period. Its beginning is marked by the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets. In the last three million years, glaciations have spread to the northern hemisphere. It commenced with Greenland becoming increasingly covered by an ice sheet in late Pliocene (2.9-2.58 Ma ago)[11] During the Pleistocene Epoch (starting 2.58 Ma ago), the Quaternary glaciation developed with decreasing mean temperatures and increasing amplitudes between glacials and interglacials. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene, large areas of northern North America and northern Eurasia have been covered by ice sheets.