You're viewing a single thread.
One thing I'm unsure of is whether warming is so bad because a) planet was warmer multiple time in prehistory and it led to abidance of life b) we live in interglacial period and if that perid ends we are going to fight much worse calamity and need much more energy. Even getting out could become life threatening.
On the other hand Venus situation is also not ideal.
Speed of change.
Natural climate changes happen over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years
Not tens to hundreds of years.
Not always, check Sahara for instance. Went from grass lands with biggest lake on planet to dust dry place within hundreds of years as Egyptians who built pyramids still lived in period before total desrtification. That affected whole world climate BTW.
But desertification is a different phenomenon than climate change, right? The speed and magnitude of global climate change right now has not been found, too.
Not in Sahara case. Or to be precise it's cycle of combinations of titling earth axe, changing orbit shape and maybe some other things like solar cycles that all affects global climate all over the planet manifesting among else in Sahara as cycles of desert <> grassland depending on which phase it is ATM.
That solar cycle itself change global avg temperature every few years.
Also around middle age there was "small" ice age. You see, climate seem stable but it isn't even in horizont of hundreds of years. It will change regardless of humans. Point is whether humans help it into good/ neutral / bad phase and how long it takes.My other point is that eachtime earth was warmer few degrees than today, life boomed.
A green Sahara is the anomaly.
it's cycle that reapeats itself, I suppose it can seem unusual.
It's on a 40000+ year cycle, it's not expected to be naturally green for another 15000 years. And some of the people who study this say that it is dry for the majority of the time (idk the actual breakdown that they claim but it is not a measly 1-2%).
So yes, a green Sahara is unusual.
My point is It's irrelevant whether you think of it as such, OP point is climate changed in that time relatively fast dispite humans not going through industrial revolution. It manifested among else in Sahara.
Are you trying to say manmade climate change isn't as bad for us as its being made out to be?
Because if you are, the planet literally doesn't care and if some of the more basic lifeforms survive, life will go on.
But what we are worried about is whether it is habitable for humans, and we are fucking over our ability to survive at several magnitudes faster than is normal for our little rock spaceship.
I'm saying there are tens of theories, some of them are bad others are good or neutral for humans or other species. I'm also hinting that often activists and goverments don't follow reason or science but are after feelings and sensations. But we should let scientists tp figure it out and find concensus.
disclaimer: opinion here ofc deciding if it is bad depends very much on the viewpoint. But yourself as a human should probably view it from the viewpoint of mankind in general. And then, yes, it is undoubtably bad. It is going to cost humankind an unimaginable amount of money and it'll increase inequality and unfairness in unimaginable amounts. That's also why there are so many people denying or not believing it. A lot of humans are uninformed or unable to grasp the issue on a logical level simply because of the scale of the issue.
Is it though? There are scientists who claim golf stream will stop but also that it won't. There are scientists claiming that warmer temperature will cause horrible food shortages etc but others who say it will also create better enviroment for plants (warm + CO2) which among others are main source of nutrition for humans and animals consumed by humans. It might even extend tropical life rich waters. Human understanding came far but it's still lacking. I'm all for nature preservertion but is building huge wind plants in middle of mountains forest gonna safe us or have any effect as oppose to negatively affecting nature?
We need reason and not sensationism to drive these changes, IMHO.I didn't get notification but i cannot let stand your statement. You're just wrong. Pretty much all of scientists agree that it is unimaginably worse than good. Trying to argue about that is just yourself coping with denying the issue at hand.