zlacker

[return to "I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]"]
1. pk-pro+0K1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 08:53:36
>>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.
◧◩
2. Geee+8a2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 13:07:43
>>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

◧◩◪
3. naaski+8e2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 13:34:08
>>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.
◧◩◪◨
4. Peteri+jT2[view] [source] 2024-01-28 18:05:18
>>naaski+8e2
What "the food chain"? IMHO there are many relatively disconnected food chains.

There are many natural ecosystems which could and would be severely disrupted as the food chains there break up.

However, the food chain for homo sapiens largely relies on artificial monocultures that can be moved around and replaced on a large scale if the local conditions change. Natural environment can't switch to a "warmer climate biome" overnight, but a farmer can and will plant an entirely different crop in the next season if that suits the place better now, with only some expenses in retooling tractor attachments. And while there are many food industries which are relatively brittle, these are relatively niche 'luxury' foods which often are economically very valuable, but not the staple foods which actually feed the population. Like, if California had to abandon growing almonds due to water issues and instead grow something less demanding (and less profitable), that would destroy a huge industry but wouldn't cause food insecurity.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. naaski+UD3[view] [source] 2024-01-28 23:34:15
>>Peteri+jT2
> However, the food chain for homo sapiens largely relies on artificial monocultures that can be moved around and replaced

As just one example, ocean acidification could kill a lot of the algae. Pretty much everything is upstream of algae. It would be catastrophic, even for us.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Peteri+XK3[view] [source] 2024-01-29 00:32:15
>>naaski+UD3
Are cereals, tubers and legumes upstream of algae? They are "pretty much everything* as far as food security is concerned, they constitute 90% of calories consumed by humanity; the three main species - rice, maize, and wheat - currently form 2/3 and in case of a catastrophe probably could cover nearly 100%.
[go to top]