Comments
KoreyYrvaI t1_je6mp9e wrote
Frostpunk about to get too real.
PM_ME_UR_RSA_KEY t1_je80a2u wrote
I'm already investing in steam cores. And those chest lamp thing that everyone will be wearing.
Vv4nd t1_je6o5i8 wrote
not really. Well parts of Europe may see colder seasons. This will not be an abrupt change but gradual.
Kwiatkowski t1_je84jlx wrote
a decade back in one of my sustainable fuels courses the professor really went on a tangent and deep dive about how the deep ocean currents in the atlantic make most of western europe a habitable place, and how it might be disrupted by the rapid melt of the global ice stores. Also went on about how there were essentially large pools of methane deep in the gulf that were stable now, but if the deep water got just a few degrees higher would permit them to change state to a gas and then bad news bears fire greenhouse gas emissions. Really makes you look forward to the coming apocalypse doesn’t it?
ranaparvus t1_je9mw3a wrote
Clathrate Gun Hypothesis.
spastical-mackerel t1_jea6f23 wrote
Encasing Northern Europe in ice would lower emissions, I guess
Nachtzug79 t1_je8rojf wrote
Climate alarmists can't even say if Europe is getting warmer or cooler...
Kwiatkowski t1_je9jq1c wrote
It IS getting warmer, but the thing is as the globe as a whole heats up big climatological shifts are bound to happen. The northern part of western europe relies on a large subsurface current in the atlantic to keep it abnormally mild compared to the climate you would expect based on its latitude. However as the globe, and specifically the oceans, warm up we are going to see a lot of shifts in the norm as the currents change. Don’t think it just means everything gets cooler then too, the ocean will still be carrying around more heat and will find somewhere to dump it, so likely other areas all along it’s route will see proportional spikes in heat if the current ever stops.
All in all we’re in for a bad time.
Additional_Set_5819 t1_je7g3dd wrote
... I think peak emissions are still over a decade out...
Unfortunately everything based of rapid and severe cuts will probably be happening sooner than expected because our optimistic predictions are beyond reality.
wildweaver32 t1_je8g94n wrote
[deleted] t1_je90jep wrote
[deleted]
Joxposition t1_je6pv8c wrote
The climate change should stop and think of how its actions affect the economy.
Feynnehrun t1_je6uojb wrote
Finally someone says it. The climate is being super disrespectful.
mac_duke t1_je8j5e2 wrote
Yes. Vote Trump so he will nuke the climate to teach it a lesson. And build a wall around Florida to keep the dirty ocean out. The man has sharpies he can direct the climate however he wants.
Feynnehrun t1_je8kexg wrote
Those hurricanes won't stand a chance.
[deleted] t1_je7nmhp wrote
The environment should pick up its bootstraps and start repairing itself for humans. So selfish 😠
xdox t1_je9qtlj wrote
Or watch a course on why it is its fault and why it should start with said repair. We can't simply ask the environment to repair itself, we need to show it that we tried, that course will do the trick.
kthulhu666 t1_je6o1xw wrote
IIRC, James Burke discussed this possibilty and its ramifications in his documentary 'After the Warming' in 1989.
Vv4nd t1_je6tg19 wrote
this is not the end of the warming, on the contrary. This will turbocharge the warming.
The gulf stream doesnt just warm many parts of europe, it cools down significant parts of the south.
This will make things so much worse, the warming that is.
We are living in the find out age, after fucking around.
Kucked4life t1_je75gn5 wrote
The article is literally the premise of "The day after tomorrow". This isn't an obscure concept, human nature is just too indifferent to the suffering of others.
ohnoitsthebigcheese t1_je7n46t wrote
I would rather state it as follows: humans, in times of scarcity, prioritize themselves above others. Which is then perfectly understandable imo.
I don't believe standard human nature lacks empathy and that we learned it through civilization. On the contrary even.
GhostFish t1_je86xpj wrote
The species as a mass is not intelligent. It has no empathy for others because there are no others. It does not recognize other life as valuable beyond potential as a food source.
You are marveling at the intricacy of individual cells while ignoring the ravenous beast that the cells came from.
The species can't conceive of the choice. It just feeds and facilitates entropy.
ohnoitsthebigcheese t1_je8l35a wrote
Pars pro toto, but still relevant I feel. It's been demonstrated that while humans might not be born with empathy, they're still born with the ability to learn empathy...
brihamedit t1_je6ms4t wrote
It'll obviously a big long term change in climate and disruption in the food chain. All countries need to start prepping for it. There won't be any food and any gov and any humans left if we don't handle things properly.
Ultimately we might be too young as a species to handle such big issues. Its not about small bunches of people surviving the big calamity. People will survive anyway. But that will not amount to anything unless its properly calibrated. Leave things to natural process, people will go back to being simple minded farmers and will inevitably go extinct at some point later. Its unlikely human civilization will reemerge as a big capable species ever again out of the simple minded frame of being. The whole thing has to be calibrated with the right kind of future oriented secular narrative that promotes right culture and right growth and right frame of mind and right identity and promote high capacity in everything. But problem is we can't even handle the small existence in limited time frame we have so far. We are still at that proto human mind set.
odc100 t1_je7257o wrote
Interesting comment, thanks.
What would you see as the right kind of culture and state of mind?
brihamedit t1_je72c3l wrote
Secular humanist western liberal - future and progress oriented - sensible and reasonable and up to date about rule making.
_thelastman t1_je79kig wrote
So… Star Trek
brihamedit t1_je7b3g9 wrote
Star trek. And better. That's it.
UrkBurker t1_je8y11b wrote
I Dont think your kind survives due to the lack of weaponry and abundance of art degrees.
brihamedit t1_je9qta4 wrote
hahahahaha you make a good point.
mcs_987654321 t1_je7n6e9 wrote
Ehh, disagree, the species will be fine, and the tendency towards civilization building seems to something we’re inherently built towards, so I’m not especially worried about that either, especially given the recovery that was seen post Bronze Age collapse.
As to the survival of current civilizations (or even preservation of the skills and standards achieved through those civilizations)? Oof, thing aren’t looking super great on that front, likely to be a pretty turbulent century or two, but I’m confident that they’ll be something recognizable on the other side.
ScootyPuffJr_Suuuuuu t1_je8lx8c wrote
This is a moronic take. The bronze age collapse was a global market snafu. We're talking about a reorganization of the entire food chain which will take 10s, to 100s of thousands of years to stabalize, and MILLIONS to achieve anything remotely like the bio diversity we're currently pissing away. There is literally no comparing the scales of these two events to each other. The Bronze Age Collapse isn't even a blip on this radar.
ohnoitsthebigcheese t1_je7oix8 wrote
> These options all presuppose that our survivors are able to construct efficient steam turbines, CHP stations and internal combustion engines. We know how to do all that, of course – but in the event of a civilisational collapse, who is to say that the knowledge won’t be lost? And if it is, what are the chances that our descendants could reconstruct it?
Not to mention our offspring will have to dig really deep for some simple ores, something I'm not sure can be done with primitive tools.
ezaroo1 t1_je81a5j wrote
Why? All the metal we dug up apart from the tiny fractions in space and the ocean is literally lying around on the surface. Maybe encased in some concrete but it’s not really hidden.
In the event civilisation totally collapses all our current shit will just lay around. Getting all sorts of metals will be easy, aluminium? It’s just chilling in kitchens, steel? Yep, you don’t even need to make it from iron just melt it. Copper? Electrical wiring, millions of tonnes of it.
The only really difficult ones for them would be coal and oil.
You could rebuild a very technologically advanced society just mining shot we left around, sure if they wanted to get to the same level they’d need to dig deep for certain things but that’s way past the point we needed to this time around.
Also, all or technology is incredibly well documented, and in the event society started collapsing you can bet people would go out of their way to keep hold of some very useful things.
[deleted] t1_je82cpi wrote
[deleted]
brihamedit t1_je7v2o6 wrote
Zero chance the advancements would be reconstructed. Zero chance.
ScootyPuffJr_Suuuuuu t1_je8lpbu wrote
Hard agree. We've used up too many of the easily attainable "starter" resources for a second go at it. Humanity may survive, but it will be damned to a permanent medieval state.
[deleted] t1_je6to20 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je6uhk8 wrote
[deleted]
provisionings t1_je80y55 wrote
I don’t think the food issues will be as bad as you claim. The Italians just synthesized drought resistant tomatoes and we already have cattle that can withstand the heat.
brihamedit t1_je83jbn wrote
You have to imagine how the world is like at very large scale. There won't be enough food to go around. And it takes very little chaos for systems to come down. World would go into full chaos mode when some of these problems come up that will be declared unsolvable. Hundreds of millions of people may be billions of people would be deemed unsavable. World is held together by soft illusions of safety and sense of continuity etc. When it starts to fall it'll be full irreversible chaos.
The high capacity and advancements of the modern world aren't accessible in an unstable world. Its not even redoable even if all the knowledge is safely stored away. It would be impossible to recreate that momentum that made the modern world possible.
RMCPhoto t1_je8krdu wrote
I think you're imagining this happening over a week or a month, not a generation like it is predicted.
i_never_ever_learn t1_je6ts7o wrote
So using the well documented math of drastically underestimated climate timelines we should see evidence of this pretty soon.
False-Material-6148 t1_je7g422 wrote
Is this going to clog my toilet?
ScootyPuffJr_Suuuuuu t1_je8lkjc wrote
No, it's going to make it so you have nothing to clog your toilet with...
wetmarketsloppysteak t1_je6mciu wrote
We are all going to die but if we have to die we might as well do it for something worth the sacrifice! FOR THE ECONOMY! LET OIR DEATHS NOT BE IN VAIN! LONG LIVE THE ECONOMY!
scoofy t1_je6nv8h wrote
You do realize that if the economy stopped billions of people would die, right?
I'm all for lowering emissions, I've been supporting serious climate change legislation for my entire adult life, but pretending the global economy isn't a serious and important thing misses the point.
shaneswa t1_je6ool9 wrote
The climate is an important thing independent of our made up system of trade.
scoofy t1_je6p7rp wrote
The climate is incredibly important. Our "made up" system of trade is also incredibly important. A collapse of either of them would leave most of us dead or impoverished.
silentbargain t1_je7bs9d wrote
Why are you putting made up in quotation marks? Its effects are real, but it was designed by humans. It is certainly made up.
scoofy t1_je7d582 wrote
Each of is going to work every day is the economy. It’s not the stock market.
If we stopped the economy, food wouldn’t be on shelves, electricity would stop coming out of outlets in your house, people would die of starvation, heat stroke, and frigid temperatures. The economy is a living thing, not some ivory tower fiction, and it’s how we survive as a society right now.
We need to change the way we do things, but blaming a nebulous economy is naive. We are the economy. Everything productive we do is the economy.
botle t1_je7tsr3 wrote
Nobody's talking about stopping the economy.
People are complaining that huge damage is done to the environment for the sake of squeezing out every little last percentage point of economic growth.
Climate change will probably have a far bigger negative effect on the economy than the changes that we need to do to limit climate change.
The issue is the tragedy of the commons.
Agreeing to certain restrictions on emissions we will all benefit long term, but short term anyone that ignores the restrictions will benefit personally.
scoofy t1_je7uzpd wrote
> huge damage is done to the environment for the sake of squeezing out every little last percentage point of economic growth.
I mean. I look around. Where I live, the main source of GHGs are from personal vehicles, gas stoves, and animal agriculture. All of which there are already very reasonable alternatives to, that people just don't want. There are some "big economy" things there, but they aren't nearly as big as just people driving gasoline fueled cars.
Obviously that's not the same everywhere, but when i sit and look very hard at the problem, blaming some ephemeral "economy" or marginal economic growth isn't whats causing the problem. It's every day human decisions. It's shit I've given public comment for. Nothings changing because even most people in these threads don't realized the impact if things they consider essential to their lives.
botle t1_je84exq wrote
All those trucks and personal vehicles you're seeing around you already follow environmental and safety standards that make them more expensive and emmit less.
If vehicles that were cheaper but worse for the environment could be made and sold legally they would be, but a communal democratic decision has been made to limit the legal limits on emissions for new vehicles.
The responsibility is too often put on the individual to do the right thing, and it distracts from the actually significant decisions that need to be made on a political level.
The significant change can only happen as a communal democratic decision. By us choosing a government that's willing to set stricter limits on emissions, introduce carbon emissions trading and requirements on blended fuels. Many parts of the western world don't even have a useful public transportation system that people can use to reliability get to work and everywhere else they need.
This problem cant be solved by righteous individuals going out and buying an expensive electric car, recycling or going vegan.
It's a communal problem that requires a communal decision, and as you can see in the article you posted, the emissions.have been going down successfully, just not fast enough.
There are companies and think tanks out there that want to put the responsibility on you, the individual, to discourage you from voting in a way that would potentially decrease their profit, but increase the profit of other upcoming industries and be better for all of us.
scoofy t1_je8631t wrote
If we can get a carbon cap and trade system in place, I'd be ecstatic. I just think it's naive that people think it's big corp lobbying congress to keep that from happening. People would freak out.
When I'm making these statements, I'm not saying that "this is the result of individual decisions" it's just that all these individual decisions affect policy.
I was celebrating when gas prices exploded in CA this last year, assuming more people would switch to renewables. Literally the opposite happened. The gov't started mailing out checks to people to help them afford gasoline. It's ridiculous. Everyone wants it both ways. They want carbon tax/trade, but they also want low gas prices. You can't have both.
botle t1_je86v3m wrote
>If we can get a carbon cap and trade system in place, I'd be ecstatic.
Most western countries do have one in place so it can happen in California too.
>I just think it's naive that people think it's big corp lobbying congress to keep that from happening. People would freak out.
I am not too familiar with your local situation. What I was trying to say is that every time this is presented as an individual decision and sacrifice instead of as a communal one, it discourages change.
>I was celebrating when gas prices exploded in CA this last year, assuming more people would switch to renewables. Literally the opposite happened. The gov't started mailing out checks to people to help them afford gasoline.
The last year has been a bit of an exception because of the war and inflation. The EU has felt it even more I think despite being less dependent on private vehicles.
Vv4nd t1_je6u3ig wrote
The economy would greatly benefit from doing something about climate change.
Well of cause certain impactful people do benefit short term from not doing much about it...
scoofy t1_je6v3bo wrote
"Doing something" is a vague and nebulous term. People will have to give up tangible things they don't want to. Fighting climate change isn't all puppy dogs and rainbows. It's living in a walkup apartment instead of a house, it's trading a cheeseburger for a veggieburger, and it's riding an ebike in the rain instead of driving.
I already do most of those things. Most people I meet that promote "doing something" about climate change, suddenly say, "well not that!" when I start talking about the high GHG emissions from common everyday "necessities" they feel they can't or shouldn't have to part with.
alertthenorris t1_je6pw51 wrote
And if this planet can't support life anymore, all the billions of people will die.
scoofy t1_je6tkg5 wrote
I know. It's hard problem, primarily a coordination problem, but also a problem of energy. It's solvable, but when push comes to shove, people don't want to change.
I live in liberal SF and people won't even increase density, much less give up their precious automobiles to cut their carbon footprint. It's a much more difficult problem to solve. Most of the people who say they care about climate change won't even give up beef, much less ride an ebike.
wetmarketsloppysteak t1_je6og1h wrote
How do you measure the economy? Economic growth as measured now is failing and causing people to die and will be the cause of everyone to perish. All for the sake and momentary needs of the few on top. Economists of the past century have failed us and were wrong completely at the most basic levels. If you want a healthy economy you need a healthy society and currently those things are not syncing up. We need to change how we measure the economy and what what we choose to emphasize when it comes to overall well being.
I am not exactly arguing or disagreeing with you, just elaborting on my point.
scoofy t1_je6op5f wrote
> How do you measure the economy?
My ability to get food for some form of labor at the grocery store is a pretty good starting point.
I don't have a farm, so I'm wholly dependent on other people halfway across my country to grow my food for me. I trade my labor indirectly for that food. That's the economy.
Feynnehrun t1_je6vnyn wrote
Not trying to say you need to change your behaviors or that you're even in a position to. But this way of thinking is exactly why corporations will continue to destroy the environment for profit. Many people have the ability to become partially or completely self sufficient with produce. Livestock is a bit different.
Anyone with a lawn is choosing to use that space to grow an ornamental plant that requires constant care and maintenance instead of a beneficial food bearing plant that also requires care and maintenance.
If more people worked harder to become more self sufficient, instead of relying on the "trade labor for food" model....more of society would be insulated from damaging effects of a failed economy and would not become part of the "billions" that may die in an economic breakdown.
Obviously this is an overly simplistic argument and I understand there are many nuances to this that aren't being accounted for like those living in apartment complexes in densely packed urban areas....there are solutions there too....but simply being apathetic to "I'm completely dependent on the economic situation that's killing us and I have no capability or motivation to change that" is certainly not setting yourself up for success in a world where we can clearly see, decades in advance, what the consequences of that will be.
scoofy t1_je6xcdd wrote
Right, so I'm having trouble in my neighborhood meeting trying to get safe bicycle infrastructure put in, which is constantly being blocked people preserving street parking, or switching from gas stoves and heating equipment to electric (even though the electric is in large part still GHG based), but you're only asking people to turn their front yard into fucking farmland, and convert the worlds largest economy into one built on subsistence farming.
I honestly feel like your arguments are so naively idealistic that you'd have a hard time convincing your neighbor that it's feasible, much less an entire city.
This argument are in the same vein of the cultural revolution, and that didn't end well.
Feynnehrun t1_je6zr7b wrote
First, my argument was not one about the possibility of getting everyone to collectively engage in these practices. It was simply an observation on a single way in which a person could insulate themselves from food insecurity in a failed economy.
Second, nobody said "turn your front yard into a farmland" a family of 4 could be sustained for an entire year on a series of raised beds in less than 800 square feet. As I said, this isn't feasible for everyone, but it is feasible for a lot of people, regardless of whether they're willing to or not. Those who are not willing to, will suffer from food insecurity when the economy collapses. Whether you or I can convince them of not isn't our problem, it's theirs.
One thing I can say for certain, is that if we destroy the climate through our continued practices, nobody will be growing anything in their yard, whether they want to or not.
I live in a redneck, MAGA county, and I fully understand exactly how unwilling people are to accept any new ideas or that climate change is even real. My argument was in no way an argument to convince people collectively to make this change, it was a suggestion that if anyone does not want to die of starvation in an economic collapse because they're dependent on the grocery store, then they probably want to make this change (or some other similar change that reduces their reliance on grocery stores to survive). Their willingness to accept that is none of my concern. My food security situation is handled 100%.
I could make arguments about how individuals could change their behaviors to save our climate....but again, I know all too well that will fall on deaf ears.
TXTCLA55 t1_je7aldx wrote
I'm sure we'll find new ways to make money. Hell, some idiots started selling jpegs this past year for millions.
ThatPoppinFreshFit t1_je89is7 wrote
In climate science, this stuff tends to happen before the predicted date, so I'd spitball maybe 2035. Which is kind of scary to think about.
lionsfan2016 t1_je9h6xv wrote
To be fair I remember reading another article that said we were 100 years out from this a year or two ago. So hopefully not that soon but you’re probably right.
ReadItUser42069365 t1_je6sg04 wrote
Make your individual changes such as eating legumes instead of animals and lobby for bigger changes from large companies
Macaron-Optimal t1_je81zhy wrote
good luck convincing the developing and newly developed world to stop using oil and gas (china/india/ african natiions/SA nations/middle eastern nations)
ReadItUser42069365 t1_je87lpr wrote
Thanks! Gonna need it. Especially since people in "developed countries" use that excuse to not make any changes themselves. That wouldn't be you would it?
[deleted] t1_je8879e wrote
[deleted]
TopHatJaguar t1_je8chi0 wrote
He’s saying throwing 95% of the blame at 5% of the problem is stupid.
It is
ReadItUser42069365 t1_je8e32y wrote
So what's your suggestion? Don't make any individual changes you can control and hope legislation changes and companies change just because? I'm sure our overlords will be good any minute now.
Sounds like a weak willed cop out that absolves you from even addressing that "5 percent (citation needed)"
TopHatJaguar t1_je9ii0x wrote
My suggestion is prepare for the change and live your life in a way that doesn’t have you stressing out about things you can’t impact. The main driving factors of climate change aren’t going anywhere and getting mad at those “people in developed countries” who have for the most part bought into the green fantasy is dishonest. Most people recycle, there are wind and solar farms all over the place, most people don’t keep their lights on all the time, use high efficiency items when they can. They try to do the best they can.
Most people in underdeveloped countries don’t because they can’t afford it nor do they care to do it, they just want to live a better life and you have no right to tell them that they can’t pursue it at the expense of the environment.
You’re a human, adapt.
ReadItUser42069365 t1_je9veem wrote
Lol where did i tell these poor, noble "under developed" countries they must change. I'm not mad. You're the one so triggered by me suggesting make as many changes AS POSSIBLE at an individual level while pressuring for bigger changes resulting in your mind numbing comments.
But hey keep hiding behind other groups some more to avoid adapting your diet.
You are right that most of us are fortunate to have gone through our industrial revolutions polluting away while now seeming hypocritical by not allowing other countries to do the same. The onus is on us to help everyone develop in the least environmentally (negative) impactful way. Your suggestion seems like that of someone weak willed
TopHatJaguar t1_jea5ho4 wrote
you asked for my suggestion, I gave it to you. Sorry you don't like the response.
Also you have no idea what I do in my personal life, but reddit is for assumptions so go ahead and make them.
scubadoo7478 t1_jee4ma1 wrote
You realize its the developed natiins that pollute by far the most, its not even close.
whateveryousaymydear t1_je85fff wrote
has mankind developed a chemical to dissipate the smell that will come with it?
[deleted] t1_je6ythq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je7sdkj wrote
[removed]
Magicalsandwichpress t1_je727te wrote
I don't plan to stick around that long.
Drachenfels1999 t1_je6ttd0 wrote
According to Discovery magazine in the late 80's, the Eastern Seaboard was supposed to be flooded by 2015, and the Obama's recently bought prime ocean front property on Martha's Vineyard. I wouldn't be too worried
ialsoagree t1_je70gef wrote
"I base my science exclusively on 80s articles of Discovery and the real estate decisions of a multimillionaire who will be dead long before any negative effects of climate change affect his real estate. I are SMRT!"
Drachenfels1999 t1_je9epkx wrote
I bet you are always the smartest person in the room.
Impossible_Oil_3662 t1_je7hpt0 wrote
I mean there were supposed to be major floodings and mass crops failures back when I watched the news in 1995 and still those "Doomsday" events haven't kicked in. Sry guys, but you people just wait and push the doomsday date further and further into the future. Start thinking critically.
ialsoagree t1_je7k4ro wrote
"I saw on a tabloid that xyz was suppose to happen and didn't. So I use that tabloid as a reason to reject all science!"
The issue is, when you talk about "what the news said" and then use that to not reject news, but to reject science, I'm not really sure what point you think you're making.
If you want to show me a peer reviewed research article from the 1990's that made a claim about something that would happen by the 2020's and it hasn't happened, go ahead. But if all you have is "bUt ThE nEwS sAiD!!!!!" I don't really care.
I get my science from peer review, not the news.
Drachenfels1999 t1_je9f912 wrote
lol, there's never a shortage of angry redditors looking to get their pitchforks out.
Serious_Guy_ t1_jea9vfv wrote
My country just had unprecedented major flooding over a huge part of the country just weeks ago, with huge crop losses in the affected parts. Just because they were the worst floods in recorded history doesn't mean they will be the worst this decade. Sure, some other parts of the country that normally have consistent year round rainfall were suffering drought. But hey, we're not starving yet so everything is fine, right? Surely there's no way that having weather extremes that break records almost every year on a worsening trajectory will impact our food security in the long term, right?
BoringWebDev t1_jeb5rjh wrote
Yes keep your head in the sand like the good little worker you are.
[deleted] t1_je7g76l wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je7zes7 wrote
Things that never happened for $200 Alex.
[deleted] t1_je87mo2 wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je890pm wrote
>5 year junk prediction: https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1637916406141394944?lang=en
First, that's a child. Are you saying you trusted children? Or are you merely engaging in bad faith arguments?
Second, that's not what she said, even if she wasn't a child. She was speaking quite rightly of the impacts of locking in climate change that will occur over the next 50-100 years, the actions we undertake today having ripples for generations after.
>https://weatherspark.com/h/m/137170/2023/3/Historical-Weather-in-March-2023-in-Taipei-Taiwan#Figures-Temperature
The definition of anecdote.
What has the temperatures worldwide looked like?
It that temperatures are increasing on a worldwide scale.
But, please, do go on quoting children incorrectly as if it is actual evidence to support your point.
[deleted] t1_je8b11u wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8bc3d wrote
>She was quoting James Anderson, a "renowned climate scientist".
And, again, you are still misrepresenting what was said.
>Like it or not, people like her have clout and status. Don't try and backpedal, cause you'd probably like this tweet if you saw it.
I didn't. I pointed out that it didn't state what you claimed it did.
Perhaps you should spend more time reading and less time...I dunno, whatever it is you do instead.
>And ya some places are got a degree or two warmer in a relatively short amount of time in Earth's history. Some didn't. You can come drink lemonade with me in my old folks home in 50 years time and admit I was right.
The amount of warming currently going on is unprecedented in the entire history modern humans have been on this planet.
The only comparable periods (and still slower and less dramatic) of climate change are linked to population collapse and large numbers of civilizational declines throughout our history.
>You can come drink lemonade with me in my old folks home in 50 years time and admit I was right.
LOL. You think you will be able to afford an old folks home. Cute.
[deleted] t1_je8ffqi wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8g7o8 wrote
>Okay Spoon feed me. Tell me word for word what she said.
I already did. I see my comment about reading still applies.
> I am unantagonistically trying to understand your argument here. Because it looks clear to me what she said and implied.
No, you are not. You are pulling up a five year old post from a child.
If you want to genuinely understand unantagonistically, why don't you try reading the three links I already posted. Unlike you, I read, and I don't rely on the words of children or individual scientists to draw my conclusions.
[deleted] t1_je8m5j6 wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8odpw wrote
>So at first, you denied the 5 year prediction was made (which it was).
No. I denied that was the claim. It wasn't. You know this. That is also explained in the twitter link itself, and admitted to later by the twitter's original 'gotcha' author.
>You denied that the temperature in my city has remained the same (which it has).
No, I pointed out an anecdote does not data make. Since you don't know what climate means in the phrase "climate change", suffice to say I must insist that it doesn't start and end at the borders of your city.
>Then you imply that civilizational collapse is going to occur due to temperature change. Which is exactly what Greta said in the first place (and never happened).
I implied it by pointing to the examples of past human civilizational collapse under better conditions. The past is not always an accurate predictor of the future, but only a fool that thinks climate starts and ends based on human political boundaries would suggest it isn't at all connected or meaningful to learn from our past.
>Nice. We've come full circle. Fact is, yes the temperature's gonna change in places (see links you provided) and we're gonna adapt.
Maybe. Maybe many many people will die. It's fine to say you don't care as long as you get to sip lemonade at the end. Being a sociopath isn't crime.
[deleted] t1_je8r3fp wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8rw2k wrote
>What is the alternative to adaptation and confidence in human ingenuity?
Actual adaptation to mitigate the looking predicted catastrophic change in climate? You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie to me and yourself to avoid confronting the possibility of the world being severely damaged the change that is occuring, to the point of attempting to claim that it isn't.
Doing nothing isn't adaptation.
>Which we are not.
Who is we? There are already tens of thousands of deaths occuring each year thanks to climate change, either directly or thanks to the stress that change is placing on existing fragile systems.
Your statements remind me of the villas outside London in the 4th century, still enjoying their baths, oblivious to reality.
[deleted] t1_je8veky wrote
[deleted]
Vv4nd t1_je6le8n wrote
Usually these kinds of headlines just write stuff like that to be clickbaity, because doom sells well.
However... having read the important parts of the paper, this is worrying. A new model using more information has predicted this and I'd say the headline accurate enough. They could add: if little to nothing is done to curb emissions.
So yeah, this is bad news. Because curb the emissions we will not.