ciphergoth comments on Musk, Mars and x-risk - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Kawoomba 23 November 2012 08:32PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (64)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: mwengler 27 November 2012 02:52:23PM 1 point [-]

Is climate change seriously considered to be an existential risk? It seems to 1st order climate change would just move population densities, to 2nd order there might be net less or net more land and ag resources after the climate change, and either 2nd or 3rd order, the rate of hurricanes and other weather storms is changed.

It doesn't seem to me that something which reduces human population from 6 billion to 2 billion should be considered an existential threat. A threat, yes, an expense we would prefer not to tolerate, perhaps. But a game ender? Not the way I play.

Comment author: ciphergoth 01 December 2012 12:29:58PM 1 point [-]

Runaway ("Venusian") climate change is an existential risk, though most consider that a pretty unlikely scenario.

Comment author: betterthanwell 01 December 2012 01:31:25PM 1 point [-]

"On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf

Hmm, the IPCC asserts this statement without providing any argument to support it.

Some quick thoughts: In the beginning, there were no oceans. The earth was molten and without form. Now, assume venusian-runaway is a possibility for for this planet's climate. Why has it not already occurred, much, much earlier in the planet's history?

The planet was very much hotter and more humid in the very distant past. The CO2 in the oceans and the methane in the permafrost was captured from the atmosphere. The O2 in the atmosphere is a biogenic waste product of photosynthesis.

I do think the oceans will boil eventually, not because of global warming, but because of solar warming, after the sun has depleted it's hydrogen.

Comment author: mwengler 01 December 2012 02:49:01PM 3 points [-]

My understanding is that all the Carbon which is fixed and stored under the ground in petroleum, coal, natural gas, and other "fossil" fuels was in the air of the earth as CO2 before it was fixed by plants and buried. So it would seem that even with ALL the fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere, the earth supports life. Considering the adaptability of human life, especially with modern technology, I would be surprised if it was concluded that humanity would be wiped out by this.