Comments by "Brandon" (@gravoc857) on "Strange Anomaly Happening In Antarctica!" video.

@JoJo-xz2px yes. Humans already have adapted for hotter weather. It’s why we lost fur, are the sweatiest of mammals and have the only skin known that gets purposely darker with more sun exposure. Modern day humans evolved from a very unique species of mammal. Homo Erectus engaged in a very unique hunting strategy called persistence hunting. To this day, homo erectus and modern day humans are the only species known to utilize persistence hunting. Persistence hunting is a combination of tracking, sprinting, jogging & walking. It’s when a slower species runs down a faster species by exhausting or overheating its prey with relentless persuit. Persistence hunting means actively engaged in one pursuit and that pursuit could take days. It means to not give up when outpaced. No other hunting species is known to do this. Other species will give up on the pursuit & try again later. Not Homo Erectus. It goes until it chases its prey down. For Homo Erectus to achieve this, it evolved several adaptations. Homo Erectus began losing hair. It’s ancestors were significantly hairier. It began developing a significant amount of sweat pores, far surpassing any other mammal in terms of total sweat pores. We are also the only known mammal with skin designed to be exposed to the sun and build resistance to the sun with added exposure by getting darker. This means our glands also have an unprecedented ability to develop melanin. This ability to generate large amounts of melanin is shared with for example: Octopi & Chameleons. Homo Erectus was also one of the only mammals, apart from modern humans, to be able to engage in intense physical activity for 4 hours strait. This means Homo Erectus was able to better store and regulate water usage in the body than other species. Humans are quite the oddity and alien in our own right. We developed and evolved down a very unique evolutionary path. Even if you don’t consider our massive prioritization of the brain and frontal cortex, modern humans have evolved some seriously interesting traits. But going back to your original question. Yes, we evolved to be hot, and we’ll continue to evolve towards environmental fitness. Both on an evolutionary standpoint, but also on an intelligence standpoint. Humans have a unique advantage not granted to other species. Our superior intelligence grants us the ability to adapt much quicker than other species can. Humanity is already beginning to show signs of adapting to this hotter world. Stuff like Saudi Arabia’s Line City, or Operation Cool Singapore. Heck, scientific engineers are playing with the idea of developing “artificial ice” to replace our planets natural heat mirror. The polar caps melting means our dark oceans absorb more heat. The idea that we could prevent this compounding warming effect by installing artificial & biodegradable materials that are cheap and scalable to industrial levels is simple & incredibly effective. You have an entire science and industry designated to building economically viable carbon scrubbers. We’re basically there mate. Carbon scrubbing is already profitable in some cases & it’s something that entire industries are looking to adopt into their business structure. You have scientists working on artificially engineering bioplankton that can survive a hotter & more acidic ocean. You have an entirely new generation of farmers beginning to focus on sustainable farming. Can’t forget to mention the growing industry of vertical hydroponic farming. Which can be done in factories or underground. Water desalination is slowly but surely becoming more viable. The first commercial fusion reactor is set to be completed and operational by 2035. If this commercial reactor is able to prove concept, humanity gains access to enough energy to explore our entire solar system. This means we have access to 100 million times more resources than we have on Earth. This allows us to make colonies on several moons & Mar’s. This significantly increases the species chances of survival, as well as humanities chances of surviving on & restoring Earth. With fusion, sky hooks and space elevators. We would have enough technology and infrastructure to bring massive quantities of water to space & vice versa. Why would we want to bring water to space? If we bring water to space, we can let the near absolute zero temperatures of space freeze the water into ice. We then can take this ice back to Earth & cool the oceans and/or replenish the ice caps. So as you can see, humanity has a lot of ways to adapt & evolve to survive this new world. It’s not guaranteed, but us humans are crazy smart. If you need further inspiration. You can look to those who live in the most hot parts of the world. See how they live and adapt to the heat.
4
@JCAH1 You’re right that ice is increasing in some places. But that doesn’t mean you’re right climate change isn’t happening. The issue is the ice that’s increasing is not quality ice. You want it to be thick ice. Thick ice is harder to melt & thick ice is better at reflecting the suns heat. Those regions are only rebuilding thin ice. Al Gore is a sensationalist who screamed the most extreme predictions based on various different climate simulations. I agree that the likes of Al Gore hurt the climate change movement as a whole. But he wasn’t wrong, his timeline is wrong. Scientists have confirmed many times since Al Gore’s warnings that there is enough ice in both poles to raise the global sea level by 20 feet. That is enough to englulf coastal sea lines all over the world. It would swallow New York, Cali, Florida and other places. The issue here is loss of ice compounds the heating effects of the sun. Exposed waters hold more heat, which means the oceans are warming. As the oceans warm, it causes ice to rebuild thinner. When ice rebuilds thinner, it makes the whole system a little bit more fragile. A fragile system is at threat of total collapse. Total collapse leads to snowballing events. All it takes is one abnormally hot winter in the poles to further destabilize the region. Al Gores model didn’t predict a resilient Mother Nature. She’s got her limits though. Humanity continues to push Mother Nature to new extremes and I honestly believe we’ve gotten lucky as a species that Mother Nature has been able to maintain control. How far do we need to push it to break the whole system? I’m glad there’s a global wave of awareness about climate change and the importance of reaching net zero carbon emissions. I’m nervious that in the 50-100 years it will take to reach those goals, we’ll push Mother Nature over the edge.
1
@JCAH1 I’m not disagreeing with quite a lot of what you’re saying. Obama proved to be an establishment shill in just about every aspect, climate change included. I used to be the biggest Obama enthusiast but he seems rather right leaning after I discovered true Progressive views. I don’t think we’re at immediate threat of ocean levels rising. I think it’s a problem for our grand children. Unless something were to trigger a rapid cascade of change, which is entirely possible. Look at Venus. Billions of years ago, Venus resembled Earth. Hell, it’s possible life used to exist on it. Back then, our sun burned 80% dimmer which put Venus in the habital zone. There’s a common misunderstanding today that Venus became a hellscape because the sun started burning brighter. That is incorrect. Venus experienced an era of hypercarbonization which turned its atmosphere into a pressurized inferno. The landscape became uninhabitable before the sun got brighter. Same thing with Mars. Mars likely had liquid water once. Something happened that destroyed its atmosphere. The point is irreversible things can happen in ecosystems that destroys them forever. That alone should make us want to be more cautious with our environment. It’s one thing if an external force destroys our planet. It’s another if we’re responsible. So why keep pushing Mother Nature to new extremes, just because Obama, Al Gore & the elite own some ocean front property? I agree, renewables alone can’t power our grid. At least not right now. A civilization with sufficiently advanced solar harvesting and storing capabilities could do it. But not us. We don’t have Dyson swarms and hyper conductive storage devices. Solar isn’t clean, either. The process of gathering energy is. But the process of building & transporting solar panels is dirty. So is the industry of battery power storage. Even if we went 100% solar, we wouldn’t reach net zero carbon. So we either need to radically rethink the dirty part of solar, find other sources, or both. Wave power harnessing devices have hope. I’m a fan of new generation portable small “box” nuclear reactors. They are practical, safer and significantly cheaper. I’m not a fan of old fashioned nuclear. I’m a fan of fusion. Fusion will power us to a full type 2 civilization alone if and when we finally master the technology. Renewables will become more viable once we have an industrial orbital infrastructure. Micro gravity opens up a world of mass-scale superconductor production. Which Earth’s energy grid desperately needs the ability to store and transport energy with significantly reduced energy loss. Solar will be the ultimate energy source. A sufficiently advanced civilization will most likely have solar outpace the practicality of fusion, as that civilization gains access to multiple stellar masses. Which routes back to what you’re saying about the utter unreliability of renewables. It’s not sufficiently advanced in its current form. It doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing. Also, coal & fossil fuels hosts the largest global death toll. People all over the world are dying from chronic exposure to emissions-generated airborne carcinogens. Nuclear is one of the lowest global death tolls of any energy form. In the long run, humanity needs to perfect renewables, fission & fusion. We need off of coal, natural gas and oil ASAP. We need to have a grid powered by a diverse source of energy. Venezuala isn’t a good example. Yes they are in an energy crisis due to hosting one type of energy. But it isn’t the energy sources fault. Any energy source can fail. It was the countries fault for only having one energy source. Same way it’s Texas’s fault that their energy grid collapsed. Kleptocracy’s can’t be trusted to provide long term reliability and sustainability. America is a Kleptocracy now. It’s why our energy grid is destined to fail in the long run and it’s why I don’t trust old fashioned nuclear. I trust the tech. I don’t trust the Kleptocracy responsible for ensuring the tech doesn’t fail.
1
@JCAH1 I don’t feel much sympathy for Texas. A similar deep freeze happened either in the 20’s or 30’s. There’s humans alive today who experienced the last great failure of the Texas energy grid. The feds suggested guidelines but decided not to enforce. The state of Texas obviously chose not to enforce. The energy companies decided not to invest the money into securing the grid because it happens roughly once every 100 years. Power executives prioritized shareholder profits over reliability and sustainability. That kind of thinking will ensure we never become a full type 1 civilization. Fusion is closer than you think. I grew up most of my life thinking that Fusion would be technology for our grand childrens’ grandchildren. Now the first commercial fusion reactor is scheduled to be completed by 2035 & we’re currently living through a modern space race to harvest Helium 3 off of the moon. It’s surprising when you realize China, Russia and the US are scrambling to get mining operations on the moon. KSTAR just held a stable fusion reaction for 20 seconds. A x2 increase compared to the last benchmark record of sustained 10 second reaction. 10 seconds doesn’t seem like a lot until you realize 300 seconds of fusion reaction generates equal energy to 365 days of non stop nuclear reaction. The goal is to sustain a 50 second fusion reaction by 2035 when the first commercial reactor is completed. A multi trillion dollar investment is inevitable. Moon mining is within my lifetime. Asteroid mining is possible within my lifetime but most likely will be in my children’s lifetime. Our solar system has an estimated 100 million times more resources available in it than what’s available on our planet. Why is it inevitable? Greed and scarcity. Asteroid mining will create the worlds first multi trillionaires & it will solve Earths energy & resource scarcity issues. Fusion is a requirement to harvest the moon & asteroids. A multi trillion dollar investment will lead to thousands of trillions of value to be harvested. Your argument that it’s too expensive is similar to people who argue that NASA is too expensive. Hindsight tells us that the money invested into NASA has benefitted our economy more than 100 fold the initial investment. Investment into NASA is responsible for major advancements in commercial and personal tech that benefits the global GDP. Consider fusion the same, due to the benefits unlocked by that costly investment. Those insurmountable fusion hurdles you’re talking about are currently being lept over & is visible by the ever-increasing time we can sustain stable fusion reactions. Fusion allows us to make orbital infrastructure. Orbital infrastructure solves many issues like I mentioned in my last comment. Orbital infrastructure causes helium 3 to become significantly cheaper. Currently one gram of Helium 3 costs 200 billion dollars. That’s because of the costs to send capital to the moon to harvest it and return it to Earth. Estimates put it that with properly developed orbital infrastructure, we can get helium 3 down to the millions per gram, rather than billions. Also, yes Obama is right leaning. At least by European standards he is. Bernie Sanders is considered slightly left of center by Europe standards. That puts Obama to the right of center. I no longer subscribe to American socialism & instead I subscribe to European socialism. That’s what I personally view as true progressive views & Obama certainly does not share those views. He campaigned twice as if it did. Both terms of his administration delivered something far from Progressive ideology.
1