Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for over a Decade
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Not because of coal burning, but because of unforeseen feedback loops and trophic collapses in nature due to the unprecedented inertia that this current climate change event has.
By some estimates, this event has over 100,000× greater inertia than any other climate change event in Earth’s history, including the “great dying” which came the closest to wiping all life from the planet.
A true Venus Scenario may indeed occur because the heating will likely go on for many more centuries after humanity goes extinct.
And those who argue against RCP8.5 are no different than people who scoop a glass of water out of the ocean and proclaim that the oceans have no fish - their own studies are comically limited to tiny aspects of the overall disaster, blinding them to the horrors of the full picture.
oh heck here's it's response to the Venus part:
"Climate scientists and astrophysicists have looked into this extensively. The definitive scientific consensus is that a Venus scenario is physically impossible on Earth from burning fossil fuels. To trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that vaporizes the oceans (like Venus), Earth would need to receive much more solar radiation than it currently does. Even if we burned every single ounce of fossil fuel on the planet and triggered all feedback loops, the Earth would become devastatingly hot and hostile to human civilization, but it would eventually stabilize. It would not turn into Venus."
a gemini query is like a google search with natural language embedded. ill do my "google search" and just rewrite the text next time, ta
unless google searches are also illegal for hacker news commenting
> If rekabis cared about what an LLM had to say they could have done that themselves.
I post stories here hoping for just that human interaction you speak of, plenty of scientists here who could have added to the topic, but none did. Doomerists are not typically interested in researching their claims, it would make for much less sensationalistic claims. From my own human perspective, the best I could offer without research is "that looks like a really ridiculous claim". I think a researched claim is a lot more valuable here.
Posting verbatim from google searches would not be allowed either. This forum is for conversations between human beings, not machine generated content. I don't know why you bothered to ask, though, since it seems you don't actually care.
>From my own human perspective, the best I could offer without research is "that looks like a really ridiculous claim". I think a researched claim is a lot more valuable here.
You're not required to participate in a thread. If the best you have to offer is a low value comment you can consider not making it versus intentionally breaking the rules because you feel compelled to add something. It's OK. This isn't supposed to be work. You don't have a quota to meet. If you feel no one is adding to a topic you're under no obligation to try to maximize its quality by any means necessary, including means no one here actually wants. It's OK just just move on.
If you don't like my posts, the downmod button is right there. I can otherwise do without the moralizing lecture which is definitely something nobody wants here. Did you just search for "AI" posts that needed policing to even find this totally dead thread ? Talk about HN being a "job"