▲ 1024 ▼ Doomer (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 months ago* by Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Underwaterbob@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 months ago (2 children) Don't forget climate collapse! permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ringtail@slrpnk.net 12 points 3 months ago The forgotten stove backburner is still on, but we left the house permalink fedilink source parent [–] plyth@feddit.org 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Nuclear winter will undo global warming. Global warming can be seen as a merciful preparation for a global nuclear war. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nah, global warming is on much larger scales than nuclear winter. Well get a few years or decades of winter and then a quick rebound to warming. Even worse than just the warming, because at least that happens gradually and gives nature and people time to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] plyth@feddit.org 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (the period of history between approximately 1600 and 1850 AD). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. In the 150 Tg case they found that: A global average surface cooling of −7 °C to −8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still −4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about −5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago Yes, for a few decades. And then we'd go straight into warming again. The only solution: a new nuclear war every 50 or so years. Solar radiation management is for suckers, real men use nukes! permalink fedilink source parent [–] xav@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) True, but it would still revert to global warming after that. Probably even way worse because a lot of the vegetation cover would be dead, so think desert weather : very cold nights and very hot days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago And whatever nature managed to adapt and survive the winter would probably be killed off by the warming afterwards. Yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ringtail@slrpnk.net 12 points 3 months ago The forgotten stove backburner is still on, but we left the house permalink fedilink source parent
[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Nuclear winter will undo global warming. Global warming can be seen as a merciful preparation for a global nuclear war. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nah, global warming is on much larger scales than nuclear winter. Well get a few years or decades of winter and then a quick rebound to warming. Even worse than just the warming, because at least that happens gradually and gives nature and people time to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] plyth@feddit.org 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (the period of history between approximately 1600 and 1850 AD). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. In the 150 Tg case they found that: A global average surface cooling of −7 °C to −8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still −4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about −5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago Yes, for a few decades. And then we'd go straight into warming again. The only solution: a new nuclear war every 50 or so years. Solar radiation management is for suckers, real men use nukes! permalink fedilink source parent [–] xav@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) True, but it would still revert to global warming after that. Probably even way worse because a lot of the vegetation cover would be dead, so think desert weather : very cold nights and very hot days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago And whatever nature managed to adapt and survive the winter would probably be killed off by the warming afterwards. Yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nah, global warming is on much larger scales than nuclear winter. Well get a few years or decades of winter and then a quick rebound to warming. Even worse than just the warming, because at least that happens gradually and gives nature and people time to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] plyth@feddit.org 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (the period of history between approximately 1600 and 1850 AD). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. In the 150 Tg case they found that: A global average surface cooling of −7 °C to −8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still −4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about −5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago Yes, for a few decades. And then we'd go straight into warming again. The only solution: a new nuclear war every 50 or so years. Solar radiation management is for suckers, real men use nukes! permalink fedilink source parent [–] xav@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) True, but it would still revert to global warming after that. Probably even way worse because a lot of the vegetation cover would be dead, so think desert weather : very cold nights and very hot days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago And whatever nature managed to adapt and survive the winter would probably be killed off by the warming afterwards. Yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (the period of history between approximately 1600 and 1850 AD). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. In the 150 Tg case they found that: A global average surface cooling of −7 °C to −8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still −4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about −5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago Yes, for a few decades. And then we'd go straight into warming again. The only solution: a new nuclear war every 50 or so years. Solar radiation management is for suckers, real men use nukes! permalink fedilink source parent [–] xav@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) True, but it would still revert to global warming after that. Probably even way worse because a lot of the vegetation cover would be dead, so think desert weather : very cold nights and very hot days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago And whatever nature managed to adapt and survive the winter would probably be killed off by the warming afterwards. Yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago Yes, for a few decades. And then we'd go straight into warming again. The only solution: a new nuclear war every 50 or so years. Solar radiation management is for suckers, real men use nukes! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xav@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) True, but it would still revert to global warming after that. Probably even way worse because a lot of the vegetation cover would be dead, so think desert weather : very cold nights and very hot days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago And whatever nature managed to adapt and survive the winter would probably be killed off by the warming afterwards. Yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago And whatever nature managed to adapt and survive the winter would probably be killed off by the warming afterwards. Yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
