It's my understanding that if you look at a large enough historical time window, although warming has accelerated recently (and we are in part to blame); the Earth is still relatively cool compared to historical averages.

▲

pcl 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Of course, the relevant thing for us as a species is whether or not the forecast temperatures are sustainable for us.

The planet as a whole will do just fine. We're not going to break the planet. The reason that people bring up the huge anthropogenic spike in temperature is because us anthropoids evolved in the context of a narrow band, and it would seem as though we're moving the global climate out of that band.

▲

casey2 10 hours ago | parent [-]

We aren't hunter gather's, mammals have been around for hundreds of millions of years, and

Modern Humans can just use air conditioning tech, most people in india already have a tanki, people will just dig as far as they need to keep their water cool like they already do. Irronically the people most affected are the affluent in places like dubia, if the grid fails and they don't have backups.

	▲	bakies 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> just use air conditioning tech > the people most affected are the affluent in places like dubia, if the grid fails Just use that noodle a little more. Connect the dots.

▲

HerbManic 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is very true, but the issue really is the speed of change not the total amount of it. If we were to raise 2c over 10,000 years, that would be a non issue for the most part, adaption time would be so slow that many civilisations will come and fall between then. That it is happening over a hundred or so years, that is a huge whip lash and thats where the problem lay. We built a large but somewhat fragil industrial system assuming continued stability. Dumping 2 trillion tons of CO2 into an already barely stable system will not go down as the brightest idea we have had.

If you go from the top of a building to the bottom, it isnt the height that is the issue but the speed of change. You take the lift, not jump of the side of the building.

▲

tencentshill 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Milankovitch cycles? What time frame? Did humans live in the same areas during that time? At -4C cooler new york city was under 2000 feet of ice. +4C would be devastating for most of humanity.

▲

crims0n 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know why you are getting downvoted, you are absolutely correct: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/1...

▲

muwtyhg 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because from a human perspective, it doesn't matter. The planet used to be a ball of molten rock at one point, it doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders at the thought of it returning to a molten state. It may be "natural" but it's not suitable for humans.

▲

acdha 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s a common fossil fuel industry talking point, which hopes that the listener doesn’t realize that the climate changes in the past which weren’t deadly happened on much slower time scales. We have a much larger human population now so if you’re saying “nature will survive” you’re also saying that you’re okay with millions of people dying or becoming refugees.

▲

lunias 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People like to get worked up about this topic haha. All I'm sayin' is, it might get a lot hotter. Or maybe it will get cooler? I think it's important to put things in context because it's not some monotonically increasing function even if there is a local trend. I'm pro doing what we can to correct our impact on the environment; I'm even pro going beyond and attempting to control for other non-human externalities. My point is actually that nature doesn't care, but I think we should. Although, even if we try our hardest, we still might not like the outcome.

▲

oblio 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Look at all the comments under your original comment.

Their point is very valid. Geologic scales are extremely long and the planet does not care.

Humans, on the other hand would physically not be able to survive in most climates going back 100 million years or more. Too little or too much oxygen. Temperatures too high or too low, etc.

We cannot compare this event, which is much, much, much faster than any natural warming, to natural warming events. Those generally take tens to hundreds of thousands of years to shift as much as we're moving things in under 200 years.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago we were basically apes living in caves that could barely speak.

	▲	lunias 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I never said their (or your) points weren't valid. In fact, I think they are quite self-evident and well known. People are assuming in bad faith that I'm unaware of these facts or that I sought to mislead with my original comment.