5 ms·

In the exact same way major sudden changes in the climate have lead to the extinction of the majority of plants an animals over this planets history. We are not

In the exact same way major sudden changes in the climate have lead to the extinction of the majority of plants an animals over this planets history. We are not special.

pingou 8d ago
We are special in many ways, we have technology, we are everywhere, and we can think and plan (although considering global warming that is debatable). Global warming would have to create dramatic conditions everywhere on the planet, not leaving any small pocket of survivability to make humans extinct. Possible? Theoretically yes, but pretty unlikely. But obviously extreme global warming would be a catastrophe even if some of humanity survive.
- IsTom 8d ago
  Technology depends on a lot of people cooperating around the globe. Disrupt a few critical chains (power generation, fertilizers, computers), add a bit of good old war and you'll soon be in the era before Haber process and a lot of people die. And then the remaining people will have trouble keeping that level of technology with how sudden the change would be.
  - pingou 8d ago
    Well yes that's what I said, it could destroy civilisations and their technology. It seems much harder to kill every isolated tribe in the whole world, and every survivors of the destroyed civilisations.
- jddj 8d ago
  Runaway greenhouse effects on other planets have resulted in surface temps of 400C+
  - pingou 8d ago
    Is there a possible scenario for that on earth, that results in every place on earth having a temperature non survivable by humans?
    - jddj 7d ago
      For temperatures not survivable by humans we're talking about a sustained wet bulb of >=36C On whether it's probable, I'd lean towards no but I'm not qualified. The certainty that I read in the parent comment was mainly what I was pushing back against. On a re-read though it's much less certain (either edited or perhaps I massively misinterpreted it the first time around). Runaway implies positive feedback which is hard to gauge, was all I intended to say
  - ben_w 8d ago
    Yes, but Venus has 93 times the atmospheric pressure of Earth, and it's overwhelmingly CO2. Earth isn't likely to get a true runaway like that until the sun gets another billion or so years on the clock, and when it does it will be water vapour as the oceans are promoted to atmosphere. What we're doing to ourselves is still bad, of course, but it's nowhere near that bad.
- thomascountz 8d ago
  There's little evidence that humans are able or willing to cooperate at this scale. See: the past century of climate change.
Dylan16807 8d ago
We have a massive survival range and we're on every continent. That kind of sudden climate change is not nearly enough to wipe us out. Some other climate scenarios might. Nuclear war definitely could.
- King-Aaron 8d ago
  The thing that would end our species due to nuclear war is the exact same thing that would end us from climate change - a collapse of the modern systems of society that we depend on for survival. A nuclear exchange won't set every human on fire, but it's the collapse of food production, healthcare, logistics chains, security, and eventual disease that follows. And because of the size of our population and how depended the majority of us are on these systems, it would likely happen extremely quickly before plateauing out to very small, scattered population groups that would struggle in a hostile environment.
  - Dylan16807 8d ago
    Outside of extreme feedback loop scenarios, there is no way for climate change to disrupt food anywhere near the level of nuclear winter, and there would be no mass destruction of supply chains either.
    - King-Aaron 7d ago
      Welp extreme feedback loops are indeed on the menu.
      - Dylan16807 7d ago
        Okay. Now look back at the post you originally responded to. "That kind of sudden climate change is not nearly enough to wipe us out. Some other climate scenarios might." Since ahistorical feedback loops fall under "some other", why are you telling me something I already included?
  - s1artibartfast 8d ago

In the exact same way major sudden changes in the climate have lead to the extinction of the majority of plants an animals over this planets history. We are not special.

pingou 8d ago

We are special in many ways, we have technology, we are everywhere, and we can think and plan (although considering global warming that is debatable). Global warming would have to create dramatic conditions everywhere on the planet, not leaving any small pocket of survivability to make humans extinct. Possible? Theoretically yes, but pretty unlikely. But obviously extreme global warming would be a catastrophe even if some of humanity survive.

IsTom 8d ago
Technology depends on a lot of people cooperating around the globe. Disrupt a few critical chains (power generation, fertilizers, computers), add a bit of good old war and you'll soon be in the era before Haber process and a lot of people die. And then the remaining people will have trouble keeping that level of technology with how sudden the change would be.
- pingou 8d ago
  Well yes that's what I said, it could destroy civilisations and their technology. It seems much harder to kill every isolated tribe in the whole world, and every survivors of the destroyed civilisations.
jddj 8d ago
Runaway greenhouse effects on other planets have resulted in surface temps of 400C+
- pingou 8d ago
  Is there a possible scenario for that on earth, that results in every place on earth having a temperature non survivable by humans?
  - jddj 7d ago
    For temperatures not survivable by humans we're talking about a sustained wet bulb of >=36C On whether it's probable, I'd lean towards no but I'm not qualified. The certainty that I read in the parent comment was mainly what I was pushing back against. On a re-read though it's much less certain (either edited or perhaps I massively misinterpreted it the first time around). Runaway implies positive feedback which is hard to gauge, was all I intended to say
- ben_w 8d ago
  Yes, but Venus has 93 times the atmospheric pressure of Earth, and it's overwhelmingly CO2. Earth isn't likely to get a true runaway like that until the sun gets another billion or so years on the clock, and when it does it will be water vapour as the oceans are promoted to atmosphere. What we're doing to ourselves is still bad, of course, but it's nowhere near that bad.
thomascountz 8d ago
There's little evidence that humans are able or willing to cooperate at this scale. See: the past century of climate change.

Dylan16807 8d ago

We have a massive survival range and we're on every continent. That kind of sudden climate change is not nearly enough to wipe us out. Some other climate scenarios might. Nuclear war definitely could.

King-Aaron 8d ago
The thing that would end our species due to nuclear war is the exact same thing that would end us from climate change - a collapse of the modern systems of society that we depend on for survival. A nuclear exchange won't set every human on fire, but it's the collapse of food production, healthcare, logistics chains, security, and eventual disease that follows. And because of the size of our population and how depended the majority of us are on these systems, it would likely happen extremely quickly before plateauing out to very small, scattered population groups that would struggle in a hostile environment.
- Dylan16807 8d ago
  Outside of extreme feedback loop scenarios, there is no way for climate change to disrupt food anywhere near the level of nuclear winter, and there would be no mass destruction of supply chains either.
  - King-Aaron 7d ago
    Welp extreme feedback loops are indeed on the menu.
    - Dylan16807 7d ago
      Okay. Now look back at the post you originally responded to. "That kind of sudden climate change is not nearly enough to wipe us out. Some other climate scenarios might." Since ahistorical feedback loops fall under "some other", why are you telling me something I already included?
- s1artibartfast 8d ago