cypherl t1_ix53law wrote
Reply to comment by ChronoPsyche in is it ignorant for me to constantly have the singularity in my mind when discussing the future/issues of the future? by blxoom
Your phrase solve climate change makes me interested. I live in a spot of North America that had a 1000 feet of ice over it 10,000 years ago. CO2 levels have been many times higher and many times lower historically. I guess my question is do I have to live on a glacier when you're done solving climate?
ChronoPsyche t1_ix54iau wrote
The issue with modern climate change is how fast it is happening compared to natural climate change. It is simply occurring too fast for humans to properly adapt. It is occuring at an exponential rate similar to the singularity, actually, and once we reach the point of no return feedback loops will happen where shit will get real, real fast.
As far as living on a glacier, can't tell if you're serious or not. Solving climate change doesn't mean cooling the planet, it means preventing the warming from getting out of control.
cypherl t1_ix56nxg wrote
I am serious about glaciers. I think you have a good point on the speed. I'm just not sure if dropping us to 200 parts per million for CO2, like that last ice age solves it.
ChronoPsyche t1_ix58csz wrote
Nobody is suggesting dropping us to 200 ppm. The ideal CO2 concentration is considered to be between 280 (preindustrial levels) and low 300s. It would be absolutely safe to drop to those levels.
However, even if we stopped all carbon emissions immidiately, it would take thousands of years to return to those levels naturally.
That's not what "solving climate change" is about. It's about slowing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to levels that are more manageable and to levels that we can more easily adapt to.
If we continue with the current level of emissions we will eventually hit a runaway effect where natural feedback loops are triggered and the effects of climate change accelerate to disastrous levels very quickly and become nearly impossible to stop. That is what we are trying to prevent by lowering emission levels.
No scientists actually believe we can turn back warming in the near and medium term future. That ship sailed long ago. So don't worry, if you aren't living on a glacier right now you won't be in the future either.
cypherl t1_ix5ann9 wrote
Where does the runaway effect take place? 50 million years ago primates existed and we were at 1,000 parts per million. Is it something like 2000 parts per million that really kicks it over?
Ineedanameforthis35 t1_ix56kdh wrote
Solving climate change means going back to pre industrial CO2 levels, so unless your area was a glacier 300 years ago you are fine.
cypherl t1_ix581ya wrote
I think you are correct but for a different reason. The Earth has been losing glaciers for the last 10,000 years. Going back to 300 parts per million CO2 wouldn't change that I suppose. So I would still be safe from glaciers. If we do make it to singularity I look forward to global warming the hack out of Mars
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments