Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Where does it say that???
Coral life is dying for the most part, but not everywhere
Global forest area loss has significantly slowed, and seems to be continuing to go down
Wildfires are not a significant risk to global forest coverage.
Annual wildfire area is declining year over year, and is overwhelming a risk to savanna, shrublands, and grasslands
What I mean is that ALL species in those categories are affected. It's not 1 or 3 species, it's affecting literally every species across those Phylla. Your claim was that is was a few unfit species. It's not, it's all the species.
Several tree species in the US are undergoing extinction due to forest fires, including the Redwoods: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/23/extinct-tree-species-sequoias/
The coral thing you posted is kinda laughable, sorry to be rude when you're facing total annihilation of most life on this planet, but I have been chuckling about that for a couple of minutes. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-confirms-4th-global-coral-bleaching-event
(Do you see how NOAA was unable to fix the root cause of bleaching at any level? This is our governments failing us)
Global forest area LOSS has slowed. Meaning how much we are losing is going down, but we are still losing it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/record-breaking-wildfires-occurred-northern-hemisphere-2023-new/story%3fid=103169036
It isn't even close to the end of 2024 fire season so I gave an article from 2023.
Effected yes, going extinct? No.
We are specifically talking about if all life will be wiped out.
Yes, it will be. Where is your confusion here?
Stuff was not as bad before.
Now stuff pretty bad.
We have done nothing to deal with that and in fact are still just making stuff worse (maybe some stuff is not making stuff worse at the same rate as before)
Stuff gets worse exponentially
Already extinction in the millions and billions is happening
Will extinct more next year at an exponential rate, bc we have done nothing and all solutions will take decades
All those species are affected meaning they are dying.
Ecology means that's bad, stuff relies on each other
Chemistry means that's bad, stuff relies on each other and certain Temps to happen
All around all science says, it's bad
Nothing you've shown says that 100% of species will go extinct xd
Okay, well you're free to believe as you'd like. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. The math checks out really clearly to me, "exponentially getting worse" is pretty clear in meaning.
If a population exponentially grows does that mean it will continue infinitely? Why would the reverse be certain to be different?
If a population is given infinite resources, sure, theoretically. The energy that comes from the sun is cumulative and may as well be considered infinite since the sun isn't going out any time soon. Did you really think that was a gotchya?
Look at every other planet. That ours happens to be energetically at a temp to support life is the exception. The rule in the universe is that it's literally unlivable for us everywhere else we know of. Literally. This is pretty much it.
I didn't say they were given infinite resources. I said if a population is growing exponentially does that mean it will continue to do so.
Yeah?
What? It was a question you didn't answer. Why do you assume just because something is exponential that it will continue. Another example- transistor size in processors exponentially shrinks. Does that mean eventually it's going to reach zero nm? (hint the answer is no)
I'm also not saying that this disproves something can exponentially fall to zero. I'm just saying, stating the current relationship doesn't guarantee it will continue.
Earth is very far removed from other planets in terms of atmospheric conditions.
If given infinite resources, yes. I answered you.
The current population will likely be zero, perhaps simply approaching the limit of zero if tardigrades and extremophiles survive. But in terms of multicellular life, yeah, there can be a zero for sure. Because the energy from the sun can theoretically increase exponentially.
It would be cool if our ozone was working perfectly, then, huh? But it's not any more, and is getting worse: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer
I again didn't ask that. Its also not true for all populations(such as human populations)
I did ask if there can be either. I asked why you assume it would be.
That source seems to indicate that they're not entirely sure why it is getting worse, but it is a combination of factors. However NASA and the the UN say recovery of the ozone layer is still on track for 2040.
I explained why right after that next sentence if you keep reading
The ozone layer was worse in 2023 compared to 2022 so idk how that's "on track" but okay
Because if you read, it was predicted to be an anomaly and not a trend
They don't know what's causing that anomaly. So it could indeed be a trend.
It could be, but why do you assume it is?
Why don't you? If there was a 98% chance your car could explode if you went 30mph-80mph, would you be cautious about going 29mph? Wouldn't you not get close to the lower reference range?
Because that lower reference range is still the reference range. 2025 is still the lower end of the reference range for AMOC collapse, which we expect to have cascading consequences including possible earthquakes and volcanoes.
And honestly, attitudes like yours are exactly what convinced me we were going to die tbh. The people who dissociate and refuse to acknowledge any kind of negative reality because they don't enjoy the biochemical state of being upset. The pandemic, the election - people like you who gaslight about what we can literally see in front of our faces - I get it. You refuse to accept there's a problem so we all will die for it. Cool. I already know. You don't have to keep trying to convince me you all are in severe denial. I won't join you.