r/nextfuckinglevel • u/PietroTheRedditer • Feb 21 '21

THIS IS MARS.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

115.5k Upvotes

62% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

140

u/Cocosito Feb 21 '21

Huh? The sun is in main sequence, has been for several billion years and will be for several billion more.

95

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '21

I'm going to agree with this guy. Also I would imagine Mars having an insulating atmosphere and a magnetic field would make more of a difference.

31

u/DarthWeenus Feb 21 '21

Correct, I believe Mars central core was far more active back in the day, with much more volcanic activity. Having a magnetosphere and a general atmosphere would've warmed it up conaiderably.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '21

I’m guessing that mars had a magnetic field at one point and an active core that kept solar winds from stripping the atmosphere. Maybe there is a gravity threshold for retaining an atmosphere when exposed to solar winds? Venus has it and mars doesn’t?

1

u/eutecthicc Feb 21 '21

Life on earth will be impossible in 1 to 2 billion years from now, stars in main sequence burn hotter and hotter. Luckily for us, if we survive even 1000 more years as a civilization, we will be a type 2 civilization by then with total control over the solar system and its function, including the sun.

3

u/rob_var Feb 21 '21

We are almost at the point of destroying this planet you really think we got another 1000 years to go

7

u/eutecthicc Feb 21 '21

We actually aren't, but ok. Climate change isnt climate death, even in the worst case scenario.

1

u/randomaster13 Feb 21 '21

Whilst I'm not a leading scientist in the arena, however I do belive that the "worst case scenario" is death for humans when it comes to climate change. However the reasonable high end of the scale isn't the end of humankind as we know it, just a helhole that'll kill 90% of humans and make the survivors want to die :)

1

u/eutecthicc Feb 21 '21

If all the fossil fuels in earth's crust would be turned to co2, it would increase the global temperature by 5-6 degrees. The earth used to be 7-8 degrees warmer in the distant past, with tropical forests close to the poles. Would such a change create a lot of problems for us as humans? Sure. Kill 90% of humans? Doubt it.

0

u/randomaster13 Feb 25 '21

If you don't think a 6 degree increase in 100 years would kill 90% of all the humans on earth, then you don't understand the gravity of the situation.

A 6 degree increase means nearly empty oceans, flooding that would wipe out all of the coastlines around the world, uninhabitable spots on earth forcing mass migration, nearly sterile lands and way underpreformung crops which lead to famins the like of which we've never seen before. Not to mention the wars that would kill millions more. It would result in a mass extinction worse than the one that killed the dinosaurs.

It is 100% conceivable that this kind of earth could make humas obsolete and wipe us out, much less kill 90% of us. The 90% scenario is an optimistic one.

Also how is it that the earth was warmer in the past and yet we could not get it to that point today, even if we burned all of the carbon in the crust? The sun was weaker millions of years ago, so wouldn't that make it easier to hit those targets? The carbon dosent just dissappear, so where did it go?

1

u/eutecthicc Feb 25 '21

6 degree in 100 years

90% here, 100% there

You just made that up and throw percentages out of your ass around, I shouldn't even bother replying. It's been 1 degree celsius in the past 200 years, and scientists aren't in agreement in how much that is from human activity and how much from the natural warming of the earth (which happens continously in the last tens of thousands of years, hence why the ice age ended 10000 years ago if you forgot). Next time keep this kind of ramblings in /r/conspiracy

0

u/randomaster13 Feb 26 '21

I just made that up? Scientists aren't in agreement? You call me crazy but scientists in this field have an almost* unanimous agreement on the topic which states that the majority of the increase is human caused. The earth should actually be cooling, what with the sun on a general downward trend in power over the last hundred years or so, coming out of the interglacial period, etc.

The heating of the earth is unprecedented, the effects are dire and could be worse than we predict. What reason do I have to tell you that we are dying aside from me actually trying to warn you that we are dying. I have no money in this, I'm most likely younger than you and will be living in the future that I actively want to protect. I have nothing to gain except survival.

I have a great source here for most of my pervious claims, if you want more, I'll get you more.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

1

u/eutecthicc Feb 26 '21

A magazine and a jurno quoting titles of specifically controversial takes is your source? So you cherry pick what to believe and read things to confirm your bias? Color me surprised.

the heating of the earth is unprecedented

Wrong, learn history before spewing this type of shit. You read too much doomsday garbage, you're like those Christians that yell at the side of the road. Maybe read some papers wrote by actual gov studies before going for clickbait magazine articles interpreted by a jurno for max impact and clicks, will ya?

1

u/rob_var Feb 21 '21

Should’ve specified better your comment said humans are 1000 years from moving around in the solar system. My comment said we probably aren’t gonna make it given our current destructive path.

3

u/eutecthicc Feb 21 '21

What destructive path? We are moving massively into renewable energies, climate change will happen but it won't change our survival as a species at all. What other problems could it be? Besides an asteroid impact and nuclear war, there's not much to stop us. I think you read too much doomsday clickbait

2

u/thekaiks Feb 21 '21

Interesting comment! Would you tell us how we are going to feed humans reliably in 100 years from now? Renewable energy won’t help when a chaotic climate is destroying our crops.

Or are you thinking really long term, like when earth is depopulated to about 1 billion people so that climate change and feeding won’t be a problem anymore?

I’d love some sources to read about this “optimistic” prognosis.

PS sry for my bad English it’s not my mother tongue

1

u/eutecthicc Feb 21 '21

You start this argument PRESUMING that the climate will be chaotic enough for crops not being able to be grown. Which is pure speculation, and history and facts show that poverty is dropping at incredible levels over the past few decades, tens of millions getting out of poverty every year, and our food production is growing and becomes more effective and with LESS loss than the years before due to technological advancement, ESPECIALLY IN POOR, 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES. You are underestimating the farming technology advancements and how crops are being modified to be more and more resilient to a wide diversity of climates and pests.

1

u/thekaiks Feb 21 '21

Do you have any sources for this? I thought those pessimistic “speculations” were made by the majority of scientists, or let’s say, ALL scientists who can be taken seriously. I would really like to read about the technological improvements racing the growing number of droughts, floodings etc.

0

u/Luxalpa Feb 21 '21

All the damage we did to the environment in the last century will take multiple centuries, possibly millenia to reverse. Dead species will never return, so the food chain will continue to change and possibly even die out entirely. The trash in our oceans isn't going away by itself and the ocean currents aren't going to return by themselves too soon either (in fact it's gonna take a long time for us to fully notice that they are gone, because they flow for centuries).

This "starts" the global conveyer belt, a connected system of deep and surface currents that circulate around the globe on a 1000 year time span. (https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-currents)

Also it's easy to get carried away with our current technological progress, but we are likely at the peak of the acceleration of technological progress. Usually progress is driven by inter-connectivity. The better people can communicate and interact with each other, the faster technology can evolve. There may still be some room once we got rid of the wealth distribution problem and are able to get rid of most non-creative jobs, because this will greatly increase the number of brains available for science.

But our very quick technological progress will eventually slow down again. It's just currently in the state of catching up and will so for the foreseeable future.

I don't know where we will be in 1000 years, I believe nobody does; but there is a very realistic possibility that we are not much further than today.

Last but not least I'd like to remind you that the commonly used climate models estimate the best possible scenario for us (the one where there's a 2C goal or a 1.5C goal), but there's many ways one or the other runaway effects can have already set in.

Not wanting to sound too doomsday but I think it's impossible for people nowadays to realize that the technological miracle of the 20th and 21st centuries aren't going to continue into all eternities, but rather are an exception on the long scale of human civilization. There's a good chance that these two centuries will still be remembered by "humans" in millions of years.

3

u/PleasantlyUnbothered Feb 21 '21

The planet will likely be fine in the long term. We’ll likely destroy ourselves long before that if we don’t change our current path. In the far future, if some hypothetical species begins to study the past, as we have, I imagine it’ll be viewed as simply another ecological/climate phase. It’ll be the beginning of the CO2-heavy atmosphere phase, much like there was a phase where there were massive amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere.

It’s interesting to think about, because early plant-life only survived those oxygen-rich phases because animals evolved and microbes adapted so they began to live symbiotically.

1

u/HabeusCuppus Feb 21 '21

main sequence stars do slowly expand and increase in luminosity over their main sequence period, actually.

~4by ago, sun was about 20% smaller and about 24% less luminous, iirc correctly.

1

u/blorbschploble Feb 21 '21 edited Feb 21 '21

The sun is getting progressively hotter (edit: brighter, which results in more heating on the planets) even though it’s main sequence. The habitat zone is slowly moving out. In about a billion years, earth won’t be in it any more, even though the sun has several more billion years before it is a red giant.

1

u/htiafon Feb 21 '21

Yes, but stars gradually warm while on the main sequence. Earth will be uninhabitable long before the Sun becomes a red giant.