I know this is deeply serious shit but.
>"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted. But we were wrong," Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the new study, told the Washington Post. "The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already."
I absolutely love how theatrical this scientist is, if humanity goes down, god damn if we aren't adding in some dramatic speeches on the way down.
Poor fishies 😔
climate change is like the biggest exaggerated subject in media
like Resonant said, s'always gotta have some unnecessarily added drama to it
It's not unnecessary drama, we're all going to fucking die
That's not what he said, and also fuck you.
Imagine thinking an extinction level event caused by mankind is "too exaggerated".
After I read this part:
> It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already.
I immediately had this soundtrack in my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j329HNk5fwI&list=OLAK5uy_ktYPoln1n-WvUNOQOWtK9BVfl9U_FBVo4
We also had a relatively tiny population and the freedom to migrate where we needed to avoid the worst of the glacial period. Now just imagine what will happen to the first climate refugees who need to cross a national border to survive today, in the current political climate we have?
Human beings are like cockroaches. They do not die easily.
No we're fucking not lmao, knock it off with this defeatist bullshit that further discourages people from even remotely TRYING to do something. Do you realize how many people read "We're all going to die, it's all fucked" and think "Welp, why should I bother then"? Too goddamn many. So stop being a goddamn coward and take some responsibility for your fucking rhetoric.
Are you kidding me. In 2003 temperature hit 40C for 2 weeks in europe and over 70 000 people died.
Why the fuck are people downplaying the threat of global warning in this thread.
I was literally about to say this.
Even if millions, perhaps billions of people die from famine & natural disasters as a result of human-accelerated climate change we are too fucking hard to kill at this point. We are too many, and we have too many advantages - not least of all technological prowess. If we have plans for setting up camps on fucking Mars, do you really think this planets climate will be our demise? No, sir.
I'm way behind the 'humanity, fuck yeah!' mindset as well. Honestly, I don't believe that humanity will literally go extinct over the effects of climate change.
No, those that are left will live so miserably, going through lives so short and full of suffering compared to the peak of mankind, that it ultimately won't be worth it to press on.
Then we'll wane away into extinction.
I agree with you. Humanity, fuck yeah! We can survive anything at this point. But please don't use that as a way to downplay climate change. It's horrifying, and it is humanity's #1 enemy at the moment.
Again, nobody is downplaying climate change - least of all me. I am asking for careful rhetoric. When you say "Humanity is doomed, we're all going to die, shit's fucked" all people on the fence will hear is "Well, I guess there's no point even trying." What you're doing by saying shit like this is make the situation worse. Take responsibility for what you're saying, and ENCOURAGE people to make a change. Don't DISCOURAGE them by making them feel like there's no point.
We are actively beyond the point of optimistic encouragement. We are beyond the point where we need to convince the fence-sitters that something bad will happen. Bad things are happening, and will continue to happen in worse and worse ways.
Again, if the defeatist attitude is annoying to you - that's fine. I don't like talking about climate change when it's all doom & gloom either. But you absolutely cannot blame anyone for reacting the way they are reacting to this news. Headlines like these have been foretold for literal decades, and now that we're reading them, well, how else are we meant to react?
At some point it's not an overblown, defeatist attitude. It's an actual mindset, an actual emotional reaction people are going through.
It's an example of what happens when unnatural heat happens in a country that's built around never having temperatures that hot.
Also
Fuck this noise, yes people are downplaying the threat of climate change in this thread
Who cares if the human race survives or not, it's in the media and it's dramatic because the situation is dramatic and millions will die. The whole point is to avoid millions of people from dying and world order to survive the unprecedented climate refugees crisis as extremely populated parts of the world become unhabitable.
People are comparing the modern world to prehistoric age like that's relevant, what. It's almost like modern society is built on valuing human life and doing its best to avoid people from dying early and painfuly. And that's not even talking about biovidersity and environnement damage.
Defeatism is bad, but so are comments like this. I find that it makes a lot of people think that, since everything will eventually be fine, there's no reason to worry, which is just an unhealthy mindset. Even if everything will eventually be fine again, that doesn't negate the fact that it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
I'm sure that's not what you meant, but still, if you're trying to encourage people to not give up and protect the earth, you should at least acknowledge what you're protecting the earth from
You can say "shit is fucked" without saying "we're all doomed and we're all going to die".
The language is justified because the scientific community has spent the past 50 years slowly edging towards the current conclusion (the 2018 IPCC report) while being screamed at if they used anything but the most cautious and loose language to describe the phenomenon that they were uncovering. We've reached an inconvenient consensus so weighty that the International Panel on Climate Change (a branch of the UN, mostly regulated by government representatives not career scientists) is no longer saying that there's the slightest possibility that we aren't fundamentally screwed.
The time for delicate language with words like "might" and "potentially" is so far past that the language in this article that people are responding to negatively is so far past that it's honestly not alarmist enough. People need to be shocked and terrified because a comfortably ignorant population isn't going to ever make the kinds of changes that might be necessary to have a chance of mitigating any of what's coming (and is already here).
I am not downplaying global warming. I am pointing out the fact that humanity as a whole is very hard to kill since a lot of people here are giving up hope and I feel that is unproductive.
People have led miserable lives for thousands of years and continue to do today. None of them gave up. Do not underestimate the drive of living things to continue living.
It will take a long time to fix our mess, but we can do it if we work hard enough, which we will have to at some point. The thing with global warming is that as it currently is, it does not affect the lives of most people, thus most people do not care. As the effects worsen, more and more people will fight against it.
Global Warming: There's a chance our ancestors will survive by subsisting on jellyfish, but we can't guarantee that.
That's a completely useless comment. When people say we are doomed because it's the biggest threat we are facing today.
The debate around climate change is not if humanity will survive or not, it's to avoid the worst ecological disaster in the history of civilisation.
That's just false and dumb. Every summer is getting hotter everywhere right now. And this is the selfish attitude that's exactly the problem, if our polution means a city goes underwater on the other side of the world then it's still a disaster. People must be made to care even if it won't affect them for the next 20 years. Because at that point it will.
I took special care to mention "compared to the peak of humanity" in my post for a reason. The history of humanity after any sort of global collapse is going to be very very very very very different to the history of humanity, y'know, before the modern world. We can't be sure if that same drive to survive is going to be there when means of exploration, discovery, and, y'know, creating a thriving life for oneself are permanently out of reach.
It's also critical to point out that climate change generally isn't something we can just 'wait out' and 'fix.' In fact, the only time we may have the tools to right our wrongs is right now, before it gets any worse. If the climate continues to drift into being inhospitable, how do you expect the remains of humanity to fix all the damage when they're struggling to just survive?
We need to make widespread, global-scale changes like, right now, to mitigate not just how the climate is going to change, but the ecological damage it will do. We can't do that after perhaps billions die.
@Coydog
It took until 1995 for the IPCC to say “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." This was something that had been fairly clear for ten years prior due to observed results and theoretically clear since Tyndall’s 1859 experiments on the effects of greenhouse gasses and their physical “opacity” which results in atmospheric heat retention.
Equivocation and cautious language are far more dangerous than this hypothetical problem of scaring people so much that they don't do anything because that terrified minority would still be in support of the kinds of sweeping reforms that would be advanced by a sufficiently alarmed majority.
What if the methane under the permafrost is released and we do all die? Its very likely, dont downplay this shit.
Canbridge Professor who worked with IPCC and considers their claims to conservative:https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
"Who cares if the human race survives"
"The whole point is to avoid millions of people from dying"
Those two statements are a bit contradictory. If you want to save the lives of millions, you also want to save mankind by consequence.
I understand what you were trying to say, just pointing out a bit of irony.
Saying we are doomed is still unproductive and might result in people caring less rather than more.
A large amount of the population is still unaffected meaningfully by climate change. For these people, the heat increase is not enough to move them to action. A large city going underwater is the kind of thing I would expect to serve as a wake-up call, but like I said, we are not there yet and therefore most people have yet to care. I believe it's going to be very hard to convince these people without said wake-up call, but I did not say we shouldn't try.
I doubt they will be permanently out of reach. Like I said, the damage can be fixed. I did not say we should wait it out and fix it later, we do need immediate action. What I said was that in the case we fail to fix it now we will have to fix it later. The longer we wait, the harder things will be in the end
Do you doubt that? How sure are you about that doubt? We are already in an insanely tenuous position as a species. Even if climate change doesn't ruin us, we are facing scarcity in resources and a heating political climate.
How willing are you to bet the fate of your species on that doubt?
I very much believe that climate change could bring humanity, very quickly, to a point where those tools are out of reach. In the case that climate change doesn't do that, I'm not willing to take the chance.
clearly the only appropriate response is to set the atmosphere on fire.
/s duh
It's almost like youre ignoring what i'm saying on purpose to make useless points
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
