You know what’s most depressing? Statistically people reading this comment (people who have access to computers/phones + the internet) will have little to mild effects of climate change, compared to the BILLIONS that will perish. Humans will survive all this, but at the cost of unimaginable suffering from the silent/silenced poor.
My new nightmare is that we manage to kill off oceanic algae and the rainforests and most us oxygen-breathers just all slowly collectively suffocate to death. Probably at a rate that we know it’s coming for humans at a certain point. Scientists would probably be able to predict it down to the week. So us humans all see our fate and are just patiently waiting for our death as we watch all the smaller mammals perish before our eyes.
In this scenario I think the largest mammals will go first? Like if you consider there was a higher concentration of oxygen during the dinosaur era and some dinosaurs were really big. So it seems larger mammals might need a higher concentration of oxygen.
Difficult to predict the future, anything is likely. But my point was if humans do survive, it’ll only be the priveleged few. Even in the last days of humanity, those who have the means will survive longer
Well, sure, the super-rich might think they can buy their way out of the global warming apocalypse right now, but when the proverbial excrement meets the oscillating appliance, I doubt their stacks of cash will make a great umbrella. Imagine their surprise when they’re left high and dry, clutching their last bottle of water in a world that values survival skills over bank account balances. It’ll be a chilly reality check for them, and I can’t help but wonder who’ll be eager to assist former wealthy folks when their wallets no longer do the talking. 🌎💸😉
I always find this “money doesn’t buy you happiness” argument really strange & pointless. In your scenario where are the rest of us? Dead & gone a long long time ago. There’s little meaning in having the moral high ground when we’re all dead.
What I feel gets overlooked a lot is money equates to capital & opportunity. Their “stacks kd cash” have real power right now. They can leverage just the existence of that to do what they want. Take Elongate Muskrat as a prime example and how he bought his website keeping stock as collateral (not even selling it).
Which makes its extremely important to not leave the rich with their money. Now is when that money actually has value, we need to tax the ever living fuck out of the ultra rich and start thinking about saving as many people as we can.
I also understand I am part of the 1-5% of the world’s population and am ready to pay and make others like me pay as well. And I am definitely not alone.
Everyone talks about climate, no one mentions the planets ecosystems (aka life support) are dying at an unprecedented rate. Hoping the next form of life on this planet is slightly less stupid than we are
Humanity will survive this but everyone will suffer the effects. Even something relatively minor like COVID had great effects to the global economy, but with these we are talking about:
Weather inestabilization, with greater storms and massive heat waves.
General crop failures in many places of the world.
Desertification in many areas.
Massive migration waves.
Very difficult and unstable economy.
We are starting to see some of this, but 2050 onwards is going to be a very difficult time for all humanity except the most wealthy.
If it gets bad enough that millions die, let alone billions, the effects will hit everyone, hard. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the economy is very interconnected and fragile, and wars are started over a lot less.
No, I don’t just mean Thwaites. If the ice also runs off onto the mainland behind it, the sea level will rise by 60 meters. Thwaits is currently holding it back like a cork.
As covered by my quote, the neighboring mainland glaciers melting would raise water levels by 3 more meters (3.6m total). You’re still off by a factor of 20x
Per your own source: 60 meters is for the whole Antarctica. Thwaites and and the west Antarctica (which is the part “protected” by Thwaites) is 3.5 meters over a few hundred years (up to 1.000 years).
You know what’s most depressing? Statistically people reading this comment (people who have access to computers/phones + the internet) will have little to mild effects of climate change, compared to the BILLIONS that will perish. Humans will survive all this, but at the cost of unimaginable suffering from the silent/silenced poor.
“Humans will survive this” - I am unconvinced, I think there are very real reasons to consider the coming climate variations as an existential threat.
My new nightmare is that we manage to kill off oceanic algae and the rainforests and most us oxygen-breathers just all slowly collectively suffocate to death. Probably at a rate that we know it’s coming for humans at a certain point. Scientists would probably be able to predict it down to the week. So us humans all see our fate and are just patiently waiting for our death as we watch all the smaller mammals perish before our eyes.
In this scenario I think the largest mammals will go first? Like if you consider there was a higher concentration of oxygen during the dinosaur era and some dinosaurs were really big. So it seems larger mammals might need a higher concentration of oxygen.
Difficult to predict the future, anything is likely. But my point was if humans do survive, it’ll only be the priveleged few. Even in the last days of humanity, those who have the means will survive longer
Well, sure, the super-rich might think they can buy their way out of the global warming apocalypse right now, but when the proverbial excrement meets the oscillating appliance, I doubt their stacks of cash will make a great umbrella. Imagine their surprise when they’re left high and dry, clutching their last bottle of water in a world that values survival skills over bank account balances. It’ll be a chilly reality check for them, and I can’t help but wonder who’ll be eager to assist former wealthy folks when their wallets no longer do the talking. 🌎💸😉
I always find this “money doesn’t buy you happiness” argument really strange & pointless. In your scenario where are the rest of us? Dead & gone a long long time ago. There’s little meaning in having the moral high ground when we’re all dead.
What I feel gets overlooked a lot is money equates to capital & opportunity. Their “stacks kd cash” have real power right now. They can leverage just the existence of that to do what they want. Take Elongate Muskrat as a prime example and how he bought his website keeping stock as collateral (not even selling it).
Which makes its extremely important to not leave the rich with their money. Now is when that money actually has value, we need to tax the ever living fuck out of the ultra rich and start thinking about saving as many people as we can.
I also understand I am part of the 1-5% of the world’s population and am ready to pay and make others like me pay as well. And I am definitely not alone.
Everyone talks about climate, no one mentions the planets ecosystems (aka life support) are dying at an unprecedented rate. Hoping the next form of life on this planet is slightly less stupid than we are
Humanity will survive this but everyone will suffer the effects. Even something relatively minor like COVID had great effects to the global economy, but with these we are talking about:
Weather inestabilization, with greater storms and massive heat waves.
General crop failures in many places of the world.
Desertification in many areas.
Massive migration waves.
Very difficult and unstable economy.
We are starting to see some of this, but 2050 onwards is going to be a very difficult time for all humanity except the most wealthy.
So you’re saying there is a deadline to eating the rich?
… Noted…
I bring the mustard…
If it gets bad enough that millions die, let alone billions, the effects will hit everyone, hard. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the economy is very interconnected and fragile, and wars are started over a lot less.
deleted by creator
“The collapse of Thwaites would cause seawater levels to rise by around 2 feet (65 centimeters). This could, in turn, destabilize neighboring glaciers, potentially increasing future sea levels by almost an additional 10 feet (3 meters).”
Thwaites melting would raise water levels by 0.6 meters, not 60 meters. You’re off by a factor of 100x
No, I don’t just mean Thwaites. If the ice also runs off onto the mainland behind it, the sea level will rise by 60 meters. Thwaits is currently holding it back like a cork.
As covered by my quote, the neighboring mainland glaciers melting would raise water levels by 3 more meters (3.6m total). You’re still off by a factor of 20x
I got my information from this article: https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dieser-gletscher-determin-die-zukunft-der-menschheit-496385214213 It is Swiss, very long but well worth reading. Maybe you can find a way to translate it for yourself. It also says that the melting leads to a rise of 60cm in the short term, but to 60 meters in the long term (1000 years).
Per your own source: 60 meters is for the whole Antarctica. Thwaites and and the west Antarctica (which is the part “protected” by Thwaites) is 3.5 meters over a few hundred years (up to 1.000 years).