this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43826 readers
860 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Unscientific take on climate change, IMO

What I've read from scientists/experts doesn't paint that picture at all.

Catastrophic weather events will kill millions, but not a billion.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I don't agree with the risk that Earth will become Venus, but it is very possible we could hit the hottest temperatures since ~50 million years ago, which were too hot and humid for humans to live in.

Projecting current emissions into the future, Gingerich found that if emissions continue to rise, we could be facing another PETM-like event in fewer than five generations. The total carbon accumulated in the atmosphere could hit the lowest estimate of carbon accumulated during the PETM -- 3,000 gigatons -- in the year 2159. It would hit the maximum estimated emissions -- 7,126 gigatons -- in 2278, based on Gingerich's calculations. Humans have emitted roughly 1,500 gigatons of carbon as of 2016.

[โ€“] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Then you need to do more reading because I did work in this field and have read the science on it as well. First all, you have to take into account what time scales are being discussed. What you're reading is, I'm all but certain, just talking about the coming few decades, in which yes, millions at least will likely die. And even then the science that tends to reach the public is toned down, pacified, and doesn't represent the whole truth. You should be familiar with this as a communist trying to get an understanding of what's really going on with the world via popular journalism. Is what you're reading about "catastrophic weather events" also discussing what will be happening 1000 years from now? 10,000? Despite the longer scale, what we are doing right now and in the coming decades will have an effect on those longer scales. Climate change is so much more than simply an intensification of weather events. It is literally a rapid change to the composition of our atmosphere. An atmosphere which has, by the way, been completely altered by life in one of the most chemically fundamental ways possible, from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one. This is what I mean when I say even many leftists just do not understand how extreme the risks are here. A runaway greenhouse wouldn't just kill a billion, it could well end our species and most other species of "higher lifeforms."

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

you: "That's unscientific"

get shown that it is in fact scientific

you again: "I disagree."

You don't seem to understand how science or reality works.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The further into the future you try to predict, the less reliable the model.