Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Thunderf00t"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DanielBostock79 Yes, but those were different life forms that had different biologies. The animals currently on Earth, including humans, would be incapable of surviving at those CO2 levels. The other issue is that the rate of change is faster than most animals are capable of adapting to, so instead of just getting slightly better at dealing with higher temperatures each generation until they are ready to deal with Jurassic conditions, they would either need to get ready within a few generations or die, and most creatures can't keep up with that pace.
Some life would survive, and might eventually evolve into new and interesting things, as the various birds and mammals replaced the dinosaurs, but it would still be kind of nice to just keep the current species around, right?
1
-
1
-
@DanielBostock79 Well, we'd be saving MOST of the Earth. Yes, SOME life would flourish with or without us, but MOST of the species currently on the planet would die off, and we'd be left with some of the plants, some of the insets, some of the lizards, and that's about it. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if humanity weren't the cause of the largest extinction since the Permian-Triassic. Don't you?
And I don't know what you mean about the Romans growing grapes, there was a localized warm period in Europe during Roman times, but worldwide it was nowhere close to modern temperatures. I think maybe you are confusing "weather" and "climate."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrStubbs8157 You present it as though the changes we made did not help. If we had not made those changes, then things would have been as bad as today, but 15-20 years ago, and by today would have been several times worse. Yes, as we made certain things more efficient in the developed world, more and more of the third world started to build up and consume more power, but that would have happened with or without the efforts toward efficiency, so it was still a positive thing that we did it. We would still be in FAR worse shape had we not.
Energy efficiency is not the enemy of progress, we can have efficient travel, and efficient package delivery, and all the great things people expect us to have, AND be energy efficient and carbon negative. They are not mutually exclusive. We just need to make the investments to GET us to that point, and if we'd made more of those investments twenty years ago, then it would have made the whole process faster and cheaper.
We will ALWAYS need more energy than ever, but there's nothing that says that energy needs to come from carbon.
1
-
1
-
1