You're viewing the front-end.social public feed.

Federated feed Local feed

Julian OliverJulianOliver@mastodon.social
Aug 1, 2026, 5:38 AM
@crumbletiltskin @evan No undo for climate change. It's a bit like trauma - no longer is the person the same.
However, after some hundreds or thousands of years atmospheric CO2 levels could return to pre-industrial, but not after the oceans have warmed considerably, and the face of whole continents changed forever.
I do rainforest conservation when I can. You can help, but never return it to how it was.
We're in it now. IMO we only have preparation and mass damage minimisation, at this stage
💬 2🔄 0⭐ 2

Replies

Matti Järvinennemeciii@mastodon.social
Aug 1, 2026, 6:01 AM
@JulianOliver @crumbletiltskin @evan well we can start reducing the emissions so we don't all die as a result.
It's very likely most of humanity will die but it doesn't have to be all of us.
💬 2🔄 0⭐ 2
Julian OliverJulianOliver@mastodon.social
Aug 1, 2026, 6:13 AM
@nemeciii @crumbletiltskin @evan
We have room, but not much.
Ira Leifer, among the most cited atmospheric scientists in the world, with numerous papers to his name:
"Some scientists are indicating we should make plans to adapt to a 4C hotter world.
While prudent, one wonders what portion of the population could adapt to such a world. My view is that it's just a few thousand people seeking refuge in the Arctic or Antarctica."
💬 2🔄 3⭐ 5
Matti Järvinennemeciii@mastodon.social
Aug 1, 2026, 6:34 AM
@JulianOliver @crumbletiltskin @evan exactly 💯 this
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
Chrisp65chrisp65_3@vivaldi.net
Aug 1, 2026, 7:02 AM
@JulianOliver
Das wird ihnen nur anfangs etwas nützen. Wie die Geologie zeigt, waren die Pole ähnlich warm wie die andere Gebiete, als sie noch nicht vereist waren, zur Zeit von Pangaea. Nur in der arktischen Nacht war es kühler. Immerhin einige Monate.
@nemeciii @crumbletiltskin @evan
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸evan@cosocial.ca
Aug 1, 2026, 12:12 PM
@nemeciii @JulianOliver @crumbletiltskin no, it's not at all likely that most of humanity will die.
Current best human mortality numbers are around 100M people, mostly in the global majority.
https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/new-global-mortality-study-estimates-climate-damages/
That is a miserable outcome, and we can do much better.
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
Matti Järvinennemeciii@mastodon.social
Aug 1, 2026, 1:03 PM
@evan @JulianOliver @crumbletiltskin the rampant climate change will:
- kill fish from the oceans
- wither the crops on the fields
- render some parts of the world unhabitable
- reduce our available drinkable water if microplastics don't do it first.
- rise sealevels thus mixing our garbage dumps with seawater.
It won't happen overnight but the way things are going it will be likely that no humans habit our planet after thousand years.
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸evan@cosocial.ca
Aug 1, 2026, 2:49 PM
@nemeciii @JulianOliver @crumbletiltskin those are all true, but climate change will still not wipe out humanity.
You can read the report I sent, or AR6, or the WHO report which has a lower number of human deaths, although they count differently.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241507691
Hundreds of millions of people, and many ecosystems, are still worth fighting for. It doesn't have to be an extinction-level event for humanity for us to work to stop it.
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
Matti Järvinennemeciii@mastodon.social
Aug 1, 2026, 5:17 PM
@evan @JulianOliver @crumbletiltskin ah but this is limited to 2050. I'm talking about cascading effects that even with current emissions halted today would affect the next 1 000 years.
If we reach the +3°C scenario, farming will end; you don't need further research to deduce what will happen to humanity.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Andreas Groissoulsource@mastodon.gamedev.place
Aug 1, 2026, 8:35 AM
@JulianOliver @crumbletiltskin @evan There would still be Methane. Its concentration in the atmosphere decreases much faster than CO2 once emissions are reduced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Role_in_climate_change
"We" could also drastically cut its emissions by just fixing leaky gas pipelines, and stopping the un-burnt release at extraction sites (burning it to CO2 is not great either of course, but better than just releasing it). The problem: It's marginally cheaper to not fix the pipes and not burn the spillage.
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
Julian OliverJulianOliver@mastodon.social
Aug 1, 2026, 8:49 AM
@soulsource @crumbletiltskin @evan We could also reduce CH4e very quickly by consuming significantly less animal breast milks and tissue. Ideally consuming none at all, until without other options.
"Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century."
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010
Few in the rich countries are prepared to personally make such a change of course.
💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0