Climate Change (split off from "Snow" thread)

[diy_fun_uk]

The planet will definitely survive. Should we actually care if, because of our actions, humans and lots of other current life forms become extinct relatively soon? Are we too obsessed with preserving the status quo?

Yes.

In terms of the planet, humankind is a complete irrelevance, however most people don't like/want to acknowledge that.

As I've said in other threads, purely from the perspective of the planet and its survival, it would be better if we all ceased to exist.

 

[JohnD]

The planet doesn't care.

 

[denso13]

Should we actually care if, because of our actions, humans and lots of other current life forms become extinct relatively soon?

Well, for future generations sake I'd prefer if we avoided extinction. Especially as we can do something about it, if we tried that is.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

The planet doesn't care.

True in the sense our planet isn't conscious or sentient in the way we are.

However, all other animals and plant life also strive to survive. Something they'd be able to do much better if humankind didn't exist.

 

[denso13]

Something they'd be able to do much better if humankind didn't exist.

You strike me as a "glass half empty" kinda guy,

 

[Notch7]

Told to expect -10C, I wonder where the 'global warming' has gone?

climate change leads to weather extremes

which is why we get very hot, very cold, very wet

come on Harry you are an intelligent person dont let your bias prevent you from understanding facts

 

[mitch66]

The planet doesn't care.

I guess it's extreme right wing.

 

[IT Minion]

I guess it's extreme right wing.

More Libertarian. Both are literally as dumb a s a rock.

 

[IT Minion]

I see many rapid peaks in those graphs, up AND down.
The earth has been getting warmer and cooler sometimes very rapidly, since it was born.
Many organisms became extinct because of these rapid changing in climate.
And.... humans weren't there...View attachment 368505

Are you seriously trying to use a graph where each pixel is over a million years, with lines 3 pixels wide, to 'prove' that the rate of change in the last 100 years is comparable?

That's like trying to plan a car trip with a picture of the earth taken from the moon.

Even so the fastest rate of change I can see is around 1 degree per million years. Not 1 per 100 years (last century average) or 2 degrees per 100 years (last 40 years average).

 

[JohnD]

Are you seriously trying to use a graph where each pixel is over a million years, with lines 3 pixels wide, to 'prove' that the rate of change in the last 100 years is comparable?

He is.

Does he really believe it?

 

[motorbiking]

Well, for future generations sake I'd prefer if we avoided extinction. Especially as we can do something about it, if we tried that is.

At some point mankind has to adopt a no single point of failure approach to the Human race. All the time we live on one planet, we have a single point of failure. I wonder who is driving progress in this area. Is it Elon Musk?

 

[diy_fun_uk]

You strike me as a "glass half empty" kinda guy,

Nowt to do with glass half empty or full. Simply a fact.

 

[IT Minion]

At some point mankind has to adopt a no single point of failure approach to the Human race. All the time we live on one planet, we have a single point of failure. I wonder who is driving progress in this area. Is it Elon Musk?

Climate change is a terrible justification for colonising Mars.

The worst bits of death valley or the Arctic circle are immeasurably easier to survive in than any bits of Mars. Climate change is deeply unlikely to push the planet to the point where it is totally uninhabitable without massive life support equipment. Even if it does it's hard to identify a scenario that leaves the earth less habitable than Mars with the same level of technological support, leaving alone the fact that shipping stuff to either of those locations is several million times easier.

Mars would be good for having a spare stock of humans incase of massive meteor strikes, but that is slightly different.

 

[JohnD]

I have no objection to Elon Musk going to Mars.

 

[motorbiking]

Climate change is a terrible justification for colonising Mars.

The worst bits of death valley or the Arctic circle are immeasurably easier to survive in than any bits of Mars. Climate change is deeply unlikely to push the planet to the point where it is totally uninhabitable without massive life support equipment. Even if it does it's hard to identify a scenario that leaves the earth less habitable than Mars with the same level of technological support, leaving alone the fact that shipping stuff to either of those locations is several million times easier.

Mars would be good for having a spare stock of humans incase of massive meteor strikes, but that is slightly different.

You argue against the idea and then support it in your last sentence?

As an IT person, I suspect you are aware of high availability architectures, which rely on no single point of failure designs. It does not mean a full geo cluster at every tier, simply that you have a parallel back-up somewhere. Until we have a plan to get some humans off the planet, we are no more likely to survive than the dinosaurs.