That's not the case here, we've never come close to building self-sustaining ecosystems, we're just (ab)using existing ones we're barely starting to understand.
There are already quite hostile places on Earth that require lots of technology to be habitable, like Antarctica, or the surface of the oceans. But both places are far more habitable than Mars is. And if something goes wrong you can send help far more easily.
If you assume it's to "save humanity" it makes no sense whatsoever, there's no way you'll terraform mars and be able to send thousands of people there let alone millions let alone billions before it all goes down.
If you assume it's a bunch of libertarian brolionaires who want to skedaddle when shit hits the fan it still makes no sense but it fits with the same folks building doomsday bunkers in NZ.
It's meant as a long term plan to save us when earth goes down for whatever reason, be it a meteorite or a global war, or whatever. With long term I mean 100-2000 years, until you basically could erect a self sufficient martian colony that needs no help from earth.
Climate change on the other hand is mainly a short term threat, i.e. if we can deal with it in 500 years, we can also deal with it in 5000 years.
> bunch of libertarian brolionaires who want to skedaddle
Wow, calm down buddy. Also, I'm new here but is such vitrolic/hateful language welcome on this site?
It's literally being advertised as a workaround to global warming upthread… When Bezos gives literally not a single lonely shit about global warming and pours his billions into space crap, it's not with a 2ky term plan.
> Climate change on the other hand is mainly a short term threat, i.e. if we can deal with it in 500 years
Climate change is not something we'll have to deal with 500 years from now, it's something we're already 50 years late on.
Space isn't going away, and in dealing with AGW we'll likely have learned a lot about sustainable systems and ecosystems, and have innovated a bunch of useful things for long-term enclosed systems with no backup.
> Wow, calm down buddy.
Not sure why you're projecting that I'm anything but calm? Does it bother you that not everybody prostrates for the overclass? Does it make you feel uncomfortable to read such thoughts being written?
> such vitrolic/hateful language
Hahaha yeah right.
Forestation/harvesting for carbon capture.
How do you get large scale adoption though? Laws? Government projects? Millionaires?
Offer tax deductions for trees and watch forests pop up everywhere.
- We have not solved storage in a way that is reliable enough for nuclear waste
- Nuclear uses another limited resource that will run out, then we'll have to switch again
- Nuclear isn't much better than renewable, and renewable is also available (and has problems that are currently tractable)
Money, laws and maybe some coercion tools.
There is more temperature increase needed though for the majority of the country to become apricot (or even wheat) growing, and so if you've noticed Russia doesn't waste time/effort on climate talks/etc. - it pumps the oil like crazy instead, tries to develop its North/East and builds new weapons, including the systems intended for the North/East territories which are going to become more used (and contested) with the coming and increasing warming. For those who know the Russian jokes, that is an optimistic version of the future. Never mind some minor bumps along the road https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/14/thawing-perma...
"almost 60% of all buildings in Norilsk have been deformed as a result of climate change shrinking the permafrost zone. Local engineers said more than 100 residential buildings, or one-tenth of the housing fund, have been vacated here due to damage from thawing permafrost."
Now we have days with 37 and 38 C every summer, sometimes even 40 (we are in south europe).
Do you happen to know in what years were the previous temperature records set? Could it be they were set prior to 1948?
This may sound like a nitpick but it's important to remember that no data from a single location can say much of anything about what the global climate is doing. It's quite possible for some places to get colder even if the climate grows warmer.
"The climate of a location is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents."
In a broader sense, the "climate" of a region is the general state of the climate system at that location. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Conversely if moisture is high enough, you can be dying at 35C (35C WBT is the point at which the human body can't shed heat to the environment anymore).
(Note that this is in germany, we don't have regular AC so leaving your window open or tilting it is the only option)
But yeah, at WBT 35°C you're going to start running into thermal problems. At that point your best bet is lots of cold water (careful you don't overhydrate, that's equally dangerous as dehydration in the heat), that can probably push you to 37C WBT.
But beyond that it's basically a race against stress shutdown of your body to get some effective method of cooling going.
Romania is an example of a country that has developed a lot in the past few decades. I'm inclined to think that people can now afford AC, rather than that it's necessary. It's really nice having a cool place to work and sleep in, it really improves the quality of life, so when people can buy one, they would.
I don't know about the historical price of ACs when corrected for inflation, but it almost certainly didn't go up, and Romania doesn't have the temperatures they have near the equator. Those few degrees due to climate change is probably not the reason why suddenly a lot of people decided to buy one.
So while global temperatures may have been rising, they have been flat for Bucharest.
The fact that you think it has been getting warmer for you there, however, is an interesting point about media effects and mass psychology.
EDIT: Here too, is the same data station after Berkeley's data quality process has been applied: https://i.imgur.com/LvmbD9v.png No comment.
Here it is on the Berkeley site. Raw data is the top graph, quality controlled (their term!) is the bottom graph.
If you want to find out their method, I'd recommend the following links:
And please be more careful about accusations of climate change denialism. You could get people fired with that sort of thing.
In all three cases, the data in their DB ends in 2013.
I think that what you are most likely seeing is the urban heat island effect rather than any incorrect measurements on the part of any of these stations. Areas undergoing urban expansion get hotter as they are built up.
The 2013 cutoff may be a limitation of the Berkeley data in general.
While I too think it's warmer now where I live, and in the winters it definitely is, your anecdote does not show much.
An anecdotal example. I purchased a home last year which did not have AC. The previous owners lived in the house for over 20 years with out ever "needing" an air conditioner. My wife and I did not make it to the summer before installing an AC. I have no doubt I could have survived without an AC but why bother? Its cheap (relatively speaking) and improves my quality of life.
or maybe cellphones?
The researchers came to their conclusion after running a multitude of climate simulations, however, this part concerns me:
>Models that did not represent heat waves well were withdrawn from the analysis.
Serious question: is climate science immune from the statistical abuses that have recently been shown to plague other empirical and/or model based disciplines?
The results of these models are usually compared with actual data from the real world, very much like in astronomy or geology. If a model doesn't agree with reality, it gets discarded pretty quickly.
In fact, that is what the researchers did in this case: They applied several statistical models of weather extremes to both models and real data and compared them. Every model that failed to predict the actual measured heat wave went out.
That seems like a good way of establishing a baseline, and gives high confidence in the predictive power of the remaining models.
You could argue about how the weather data was selected, and how it was compared with the models. But that is already a discussion about details of the specific study.
This one is a collaboration between multiple reputable institutions, so it is pretty safe to assume sound practices.
Notably, the fact that you actually know about statistical abuse in science shows that the scientific process is working as intended:
Results are public and therefore can be and are scrutinized. More important stuff also receives more scrutiny, less important stuff can go unchecked until it is cited more often.
But eventually errors will be unearthed and accounted for.
Wouldn't it be better to select the models which have had the most accurate predictions over as long a period as the required data are available? Mean squared error of temperature, or something. Promoting models primarily for their ability to predict an event that is currently happening seems like a terrible idea.
I wouldn't put too much stock on the exact predicted delta, but more on the direction and rough order of magnitude of the change.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I'd love to read up on it if you have a source?
Long story short: most scientific disciplines are in crisis in part because of pervasive p-value hacking, and other statistics abuses likely motivated by perverse academic/personal incentives and/or biases.
Here is a skeptic's analysis of the NOAA & IPCC data.
Perhaps things would have been different if more countries had been like France and built a large network of nuclear power stations to fuel their weapons program; but even France is regretting it and had not built a new one for decades.
"We could move th..."
"We must cut my leg off."
"But we could move the ro..."
"WE MUST CUT MY LEG OFF."
It's not environmental groups that are against a price on carbon, until you can convince conservatives to get on board with one then nuclear can't even get passed the first hurdle.
And as far as I know, conservatives are pro-competition and not against nuclear at all in the States.
For existing plants? The problem with expanding nuclear, at least in Europe, is not the operational costs but that the cost of building new nuclear power stations is so high that they'll never pay for themselves without massive subsidies.
The degree symbol in the title should not be there.