DeepSpaceNebulae

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_ja88s1v wrote

Reply to comment by ledow in Didn't fear and rescued by M178music

The main reason to do that is because it can be really hard to get out of ice when you’ve fallen through. It’s ice, there’s nothing to grab to hoist yourself up, and will more easily break around an edge when putting weight on it, so you can easily get stuck

By laying on the ice you lower your chance of breaking through, which is the only thing you should worry about. Getting a bit wet and cold is better than soaking and freezing

When I snowmobile on lakes in the winter I have this necklace thing that pulls apart into two handheld spikes so you can stab the ice to get some grip to pull yourself out.

46

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_j95vfhy wrote

In short, it’s complicated

It could effect wildlife as a niche is being encroached. It could also effect growth as perhaps the lack of certain vegetation helps with nutrient rich runoff coming down the mountain.

As for the change in number of trees, I’m going to take a guess that it would be a drop in the bucket relative to the forest clearings we’ve been doing elsewhere

7

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_j8t0mmd wrote

Reply to comment by jacket13 in Earth changing seasons. by ooMEAToo

It’s slightly more complicated than “it’s growing”

If you’re talking about Antarctica, it has warmed (at a rate much faster than elsewhere) which increases precipitation. In the short term that means more cumulative snowfall and ice build up. Long term, that trend will reverse as the warming losses begin to outweigh the precipitation increase

If you’re talking and in the arctic, then that is very misleading. While, yes, the winter has ice sheets growing at rates faster than decades ago, it is melting at even faster rates in the summer. So in the end every year has less and less ice

5

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_j8jcv9b wrote

It’s just theorizing about what would something we could detect were it out there. Coming up with something that would be theoretically possible and how we’d be able to detect it were it out there

Gotta theorize about one to detect the other… and gotta get clicks with outrageous titles

5

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_j3sq4ew wrote

Heat allowing plants to grow faster reaches a max pretty quickly followed by a significant drop in efficiency due to moisture loss in the leaves via the stomata (stomata are the small pores in leaves that open to take in C02 and expel O2)

Too hot and the leaves need to become smaller and reduce the amount of CO2 they absorb or else they lose too much water to the air and dry out.

Don’t know why I keep seeing this “it’s better for plants” nonsense. Like claiming a flood is good because it provides everyone water… before drowning them

Also, famine is what you went for? We produce more than enough food right now, it’s distribution that’s the problem. Or will hotter temps allow for easier food distribution?

Edit: To add, it doesn’t matter what the world was like millions of years ago or how animals will adapt… we are adapted for the unusually stable climate of the last few thousand years. Our entire civilization; food production, population distribution, etc; is all based on the current climate. As the climate changes the cost of adapting will become untenable. If the 2 million refugees of the Syrian war was bad, what do you imagine a billion+ climate refugees will be like. There are already population migrations because of climate change, megacities running out of water (dependent on no-longer predictable rains or melted glaciers) rising coastlines, declining seafood stocks, etc. This isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but it will probably be your children and children’s children that will really start to feel its impact

We will adapt, we’re the most adaptable creature that has ever lived, but without doing something now to combat climate change the costs will be unimaginable.

And this may seem doom and gloom… but that’s because it is! We’ve known definitively about this for 50 years and have done nothing. The oil companies themselves discovered this, but chose to bury it and spend billions on misinformation.

4

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_ixhcs32 wrote

How so?

There is as much a point to existence if this is the real or if it’s a simulation. In either case, you’re just one being on a single planet in an infinite cosmos. How does it being a simulation suddenly give it a “meaning”?

Or is it that you’re assuming that if it’s a simulation, it’s a simulation for us. Which is a wild assumption to make on top of the wild assumption of this being simulation in the first place.

4

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_itlodex wrote

To be clear, they publicly mandated industrial alcohols, i.e. those not for human consumption, have additives . While not exactly good, it’s not like they were poisoning drinking alcohol or did it secretly as it was new regulation for public companies that were making those industrial alcohols

The number of deaths is also impossible to calculate as even un-modified industrial alcohol can cause deaths when improperly distilled by bootleggers

22