zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
I no longer worry. I'm extremely pessimistic about the impending climate change. I believe Sabine isn't pessimistic enough about what to anticipate. Consider the tundra methane emissions and the explosive release of methane-hydrates from the oceans, along with water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. The disaster looming over all ecosystems (a mass extinction event) that will happen in decades and the doom-phase could last for 200,000 years. The chances of humanity surviving are incredibly slim, IMO. We can't colonize Greenland or Antarctica due to the lack of fertile soil, and it would take thousands of years to develop it. Without saying so, we don't have this amount of time.

>>pk-pro+0K1
There won't be an extinction event. We already know that warm periods in Earth's history are the most friendly for all kinds of life. And we know that cold periods kill species and reduce biodiversity. In the most catastrophic case Earth will end up as a tropical paradise, resembling the Eocene period [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora

>>Geee+8a2
This is naive. It's not the absolute temperature that's the problem, it's the rate of change. Temperature is going to change faster than most species can adapt, and that's why the food chain could collapse in the worst case.

>>naaski+8e2
That's true, but I think it's quite debatable what would actually happen. Most species wouldn't need to adapt, but just migrate. There are a lot of species which already thrive in warm / tropical climates, and those species would increase in numbers.

>>Geee+Bi2
And what about the species that do not warm nor thrive in tropical climates? Or those that cannot migrate? Even if some species increase in numbers, it still means that all other species would get lost, reducing biodiversity and effectively meaning an extinction-level event.

>>petemi+em2
> ...all other species would get lost, reducing biodiversity and effectively meaning an extinction-level event.

Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though. It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

>>bavell+Kq2
> Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica [0]: __These conspicuous declines in diversity are referred to as mass extinctions__

> It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

But this is not a fact, it is a conjecture. On the other hand, we do have declining numbers of a big number of species. Unless the tendency reverts, constant long-term declining numbers will be an existential threat.

> I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

That's true, for sure. But asides from "the planet" and "we", there are also all the others.