What's going to change in a Earth that's 8c hotter?

[Lexicus]

People lived without the internet lol.

I think the messaging on climate change can be counter productive.

We've been hearing Doom and gloom since at least the early 90s.

Similar with nukes are bad.

It's turned into a cry wolf thing, most people don't relate to it and it goes into the to hard basket.

this is strong evidence that the human species is too stupid to deserve to survive...I mean sure some people are smarter but this idiocy alone has to bring down the average significantly

 

[Akka]

Your and other's optimism on this is weird

Saying that humanity won't become extinct is hardly "optimism", just a fact that we're numerous and resilient enough to be rather certain the species itself can survive about anything but very long time.
It doesn't mean that it would be absolutely catastrophic on the civilization, and even more on the personal, level.
I mean, saying "we can survive nuclear winter" is hardly cheerful.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It is possible for nuclear winter to wipe humanity our, yes even new zealand. It depends on how many are used. The US if it launched everything could cause a 99% extinction level event. That would definitely include humans.

I mean if we are just shooting crap around about what could happen SevenEves by Neal Stephenson has a neat one where an asteroid obliterates the moon and erases life on Earth basically for hundreds of years. Its a fun read.

Yes Forests in Europe are making a comeback due to not relying on wood. Neat map! I love maps.

That book was terrible and I'm judging you for this post.

And it was some unknown entity that took out the moon, not an asteroid.

Everyone and their uncle can rig up electricity now or make ethanol.

Sure dude, anyone can do that. Except all the people who can actually do that are most likely to be incinerated. Oh and ethanol is generally made from food grains which would be in scarce supply after a nuclear holocaust.

Life survived the asteroid that hit the earth. IIRC a nuclear war is small potatoes by comparison.

The asteroid didn't dump massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.

Killing 95% still leaves around 350 million humans. 99% leaves about 70 million.

Yes, and they'll likely starve to death when all the crops fail and the fallout reaches them. I don't think the global south will be immune from that, especially when weather patterns shift as a result of the global blackout.

 

[Lexicus]

Thousands of nuclear warheads are far more efficient at distributing destructive energy than a single meteor impact, for the same reason a MIRV is better at destroying stuff than one big bomb.

 

[Akka]

Thousands of nuclear warheads are far more efficient at distributing destructive energy than a single meteor impact, for the same reason a MIRV is better at destroying stuff than one big bomb.

That's only true when the amount of energy is roughly in the same ballpark. Do you realize the power difference between the entirety of the nuclear arsenal in the world and a single big meteor ?

 

[Estebonrober]

That's only true when the amount of energy is roughly in the same ballpark. Do you realize the power difference between the entirety of the nuclear arsenal in the world and a single big meteor ?

I mean worst vs worst you are obviously correct, but worst nuclear war outbreak versus so meteor that killed dinosaurs is close. I'm not sure humans survive that.

Seveneves had interesting things going on in it (one of them being how the earth is destroyed), the book had bad plot devices I grant you @hobbsyoyo .

 

[Lexicus]

That's only true when the amount of energy is roughly in the same ballpark. Do you realize the power difference between the entirety of the nuclear arsenal in the world and a single big meteor ?

It is true regardless of the amount of energy involved. I didn't say they would be more destructive, simply that they would be more efficient at distributing destructive energy. But yes, I'm aware of meteor impacts lol.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It seems to be a very apathetic, almost nihilistic view to take on things, in my opinion. Just because humanity might technically survive such an event, doesn't mean we can't view it with horror. Language such as "bounce right back" is basically as pointless as saying "it's the next generation's problem" (which, perhaps ironically, is why where we are with climate change).

Does anybody here actually not view a nuclear exchange with horror? "Worst event in human history by a wide margin" is still pretty bad. All things being equal I'd like to avoid a world event where the damage done by WW2 was relatively trivial regardless of humans surviving it.

I mean, heaven's sake. Nukes are bad. They're weaponised boulders of radioactive energy that explode with an incredible force incomparable compared by the size of payload to every other bomb going. I don't get why you think that's a helpful comparison to climate change. I just don't understand.

I think the initial source of tangent is that scarcity of resources might lead to their use, which would ironically change the climate further and even worse in the opposite direction.

 

[Socrates99]

Does anybody here actually not view a nuclear exchange with horror? "Worst event in human history by a wide margin" is still pretty bad. All things being equal I'd like to avoid a world event where the damage done by WW2 was relatively trivial regardless of humans surviving it.



I think the initial source of tangent is that scarcity of resources might lead to their use, which would ironically change the climate further and even worse in the opposite direction.

There are some crazy pants people on this very forum who think nuclear winter is preferable over China becoming more powerful than the US. So the answer to your question is kind of, I guess.

 

[Lexicus]

Donald Trump threatened to nuke North Korea on Twitter

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There are some crazy pants people on this very forum who think nuclear winter is preferable over China becoming more powerful than the US. So the answer to your question is kind of, I guess.

Could also be explained with a highly irrational fear of China (aka they'd somehow do more damage to humanity than nuclear winter - I'm not sure how that would look in someone's head though).

China *might* do bad things to USA. Nuclear winter is guaranteed to kill the majority of the world's population, including USA. I'd rather run a risk of a problem rather than having a bigger problem guaranteed.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Seveneves had interesting things going on in it (one of them being how the earth is destroyed), the book had bad plot devices I grant you @hobbsyoyo .

It had a ton of interesting things going for it and a great premise. One of the worst parts about the book was how much I wanted to like it and stuck with it through to the bloody end (it's quite long) even as I had come to despise it. The way things fell apart once the survivors were in space was frustratingly stupid, as was the second half of the book which was basically Racism: In Space!

 

[Zardnaar]

this is strong evidence that the human species is too stupid to deserve to survive...I mean sure some people are smarter but this idiocy alone has to bring down the average significantly

It's because people have bigger problems to worry right no than 50 or 100 years down the road.

If you scream fire all of the time people start tuning it out.

It's like in the 80s we heard stories about radiation lasting 20000 years.

Chernobyl happens, way worse than multiple bnukes detonating.

30 years later most of the area is safe to live in except a few hot spots. Most radiation breaks down fairly quickly. It's why Hiroshima is safe to live in now.

And yeah I remember claims about humans wiping themselves out with nukes. In the event of a war I doubt all nukes would get used and there's not that many in the grand scheme of things (numbers were inflated in the cold war).


No not claiming nukes are good.

The world has been hotter in the past, no ice caps etc. Even if humans did become extinct (self inflicted even) it might not be a bad thing.

We're just overly evolved monkeys at the end if the day. Argueably a parasitic species in the grand scheme of things. Unless we permanently wreck the atmosphere the planet will be fine long term.

Some species deplete the local environment and then they starve. Global warming is mother nature's way of saying F you humanity.

 

[Gorbles]

The radiation will last, in various cases, up to 20,000 years. Specifically with regards to areas around the plant itself. This is an expert consensus, nevermind singular opinion.

Source.

You really need to understand that just because bad things haven't always happened, that just because the worst-case scenarios have somehow being avoided, that this is therefore the reason for fears about climate change being overblown. Nevermind the fact that these are completely different groups of scientists. Even if you could prove that experts on the Chernobyl meltdown aren't being accurate (which you haven't done), that has pretty much zero correlation on climate change scientists delivering warnings about that field of science!

Nevermind your argument about "humans going extinct might not be a bad thing". Nihilism abounds, apparently. Which is absolutely fine, but maybe let the rest of us get on with arguing for a better world - because we actually want to live in it

 

[MaryKB]

When your house really is on fire, and you're screaming because people keep putting off doing something about it ... and then your excuse is "Well I'm not going to help you because you keep shouting," I don't think that's really the readon ...

 

[MaryKB]

The radiation will last, in various cases, up to 20,000 years. Specifically with regards to areas around the plant itself. This is an expert consensus, nevermind singular opinion.

Source.

You really need to understand that just because bad things haven't always happened, that just because the worst-case scenarios have somehow being avoided, that this is therefore the reason for fears about climate change being overblown. Nevermind the fact that these are completely different groups of scientists. Even if you could prove that experts on the Chernobyl meltdown aren't being accurate (which you haven't done), that has pretty much zero correlation on climate change scientists delivering warnings about that field of science!

Nevermind your argument about "humans going extinct might not be a bad thing". Nihilism abounds, apparently. Which is absolutely fine, but maybe let the rest of us get on with arguing for a better world - because we actually want to live in it

"If you keep playing solitaire russian roulette, you're going to eventually blow your head off."

"Pft I've gone three rounds and I'm totally fine, what do you know?"

 

[Zardnaar]

When your house really is on fire, and you're screaming because people keep putting off doing something about it ... and then your excuse is "Well I'm not going to help you because you keep shouting," I don't think that's really the readon ...

It's the classic cry wolf parable though.

It's like Trump. He's so repulsive he becomes the new normal so his latest Twitter tirade is business as usual.

Or mass shootings in America.

It's probably something to do with survival. You read stories about WW2 horrors and afterwards people got on with their lives somehow.

In some cases it's because people don't want to believe (damn libruhs where's mah gun).

Top 30% want to make money at any cost, bottom 30% have bigger things to worry about and the remainder have a lot if competing causes to focus on.

People attack me because I don't care about the latest SJW cause. There's always going to be a new SJW cause you can never keep those people happy it's a waste of time trying.

But to get people to care about stuff they have to be somewhat comfortable themselves.

Hence why I think things like universal healthcare, social Democratic welfare state etc are better to focus on. Stuff everyone can relate to.

All the big things were mostly won decades ago (anti Vietnam war,c rights, women's lub, gay marriage etc) so the latest causes are getting more and more niche so it's harder and harder for people to relate to.

If you don't win elections it's basically irrelevant what you believe in the net result is the same. You achieve nothing, nada, zip.

So if you thought Hilary was a bad candidate and stayed at home your just as big of an idiot that switched from Obama to Trump.

I have alit if ifspwct for Sanders, he frames stuff in ways people can understand and he went on Fox news.

You won't get the hard core GoP onboard but they're 25-30% of the population.

 

[Senethro]

People attack me because I don't care about the latest SJW cause. There's always going to be a new SJW cause you can never keep those people happy it's a waste of time trying.

So say old men of every decade ever. Established things are good, new things are bad and I believe everyone shares my opinion in not caring about them.

 

[Zardnaar]

So say old men of every decade ever. Established things are good, new things are bad and I believe everyone shares my opinion in not caring about them.

Main point is you have to win power to change anything.

Whatever that change is

 

[Fippy]

I'm talking about nukes as an extinction level event.
You could kill 95% of the human species and they can bounce back. Might take several thousand years but there you go.

Dropping a few nukes on each other would probably harm the planet less than our existence as a species.

Well sadly that's true, our planet is being abused each and every day and eventually will collapse.
We need no nuclear war for that. Nukes might stop real wars from happening as nobody really wants to attack and risk them being used, so maybe..maybe it's good they exist.