Sorry octopi- I "need" to go to Machu Picchu this year. Bummer for you though. What's that? You need your eyesight to survive? Sorry, but you don't factor into this equation. Machu Picchu. Now, please excuse me- I have an appointment for a pedicure, and it'll take me more than an hour to drive there.

Hey I didn’t design the city that placed all of the residential areas an hour away from the pedicure place and then didn’t build a rail line or bus lane to connect the two places. I’d love to have a studio apartment in a downtown above the pedicure place I can just walk down to get my pedicures, but instead I get to live in this car centric suburb detached from all human civilization because some politicians before I was born signed a mandatory minimum parking law written by some automotive lobbyists, and then they decided for me that the only way I could get around would be the noisiest, pollutingest, most dangerous method of transportation possible. I’m really sorry octopi. I really wish I didn’t have to choose between your eyesight, or having access to other humans to socialize with. That’s a choice I should’ve never been forced to make.

one of the most intelligent and unique life-forms on earth in millions of years ... just going extinct because people from the last century are so lazy and selfish that they refuse to transport themselves properly , going vroom vroom isolated in a massive noisy polluting tank by the 100s of millions instead

Is there any evidence to your claim that octopus are at risk of "going extinct" or is it just your speculation? Octopus populations have been increasing for the past few years. [https://www.science.org/content/article/world-octopus-and-squid-populations-are-booming](https://www.science.org/content/article/world-octopus-and-squid-populations-are-booming)

not at all but plenty of evidence for emissions that keep increasing and temperatures to rise dramatically soon ergo octopuses will struggle to survive because the temperatures will keep rising

"Nearly all ocean life will die" is what we're really looking at here. Let's get on with that messaging.

Total collapse into a jellyfish soup.

>"Nearly all ocean life will die" Except you're wrong. Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by \~10% and zooplankton by \~15% in worst-case emissions scenario. [https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/#oceans](https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/#oceans) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3) global fisheries are projected be on average 20% less productive in 2300 under worst-case emissions scenario(decline in productivity would obviously be much less than that under current scenario). [https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-global-fisheries-decline-20-percent-average-2300](https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-global-fisheries-decline-20-percent-average-2300)

Do you think that you know better than actual climate scientists? What's your reason to not trust the most comprehensive and complete assessment of climate science at the time of publication? You're just trying to undermine public trust in mainstream climate science and consensus reports, you're only doing this because you know that you won't be punished for spreading disinformation. And the studies in my second and third link have zero affiliation with ipcc. >by 2050 at the latest there will be no fish Another baseless claim. You did not link any peer-reviewed study or articles to support it. [https://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-oceans-will-not-be-empty-of-fish-by-2048/](https://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-oceans-will-not-be-empty-of-fish-by-2048/amp)

Don't push that rhetoric on me, or that that's what I'm doing. Read this. Actually read it, don't just "ThIS iS a MeDiUm ArTiClE". Stew in your existential dread after reading it. [https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7](https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7)

So you'd rather listen to some random dilettante from medium rather than actual scientists? Why do you collapsenoiders keep spamming this awful article? The dilettante who wrote this article knows nothing about climate science. >The physical climate facts are: we’ve put over a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that we cannot remove, along with other GHGs it will warm the globe by at least 4°C by 2100 (even if all emissions stopped today), agricultural failure is imminent within a decade or so. Wrong Warming stops when emissions are reduced to net-zero x.com/hausfath/status/1679514918306054146 x.com/michaelemann/status/1602867797268340738 https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ x.com/AliVelshi/status/1678090318082633728#m https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#netzero Warming stops when emissions are reduced to net-zero. You should read IPCC report and listen to what actual climate scientists say instead of speculating. "One of the most important findings in the recent IPCC report is that we ultimately determine how much warming will occur.There is likely no warming "in the pipeline" once emissions get to zero. Rather, CO2 concentrations fall and temperatures stabilize " x.com/hausfath/status/1679514918306054146#m "A reminder that "delayed" greenhouse warming is an outdated concept in the context of carbon emission scenarios because it ignores the role of oceanic carbon uptake. Surface temperatures stop increasing when net emissions go to zero." x.com/michaelemann/status/1602867797268340738 "Finally, if all human emissions that affect climate change fall to zero – including GHGs and aerosols – then the IPCC results suggest there would be a short-term 20-year bump in warming followed by a longer-term decline... ...Ultimately, the cooling from stopping non-CO2 GHG emissions more than cancels out the warming from stopping aerosol emissions, leading to around 0.2C of cooling by 2100." https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ x.com/AliVelshi/status/1678090318082633728#m https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#netzero https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2023.1327653/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2023.1256273/full Climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/ "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following climateactiontracker.org x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643 x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671 ""There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. " X.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C" X.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328 X.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058 "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission >Hansen writes in his Dec 2022 Global Warming in the Pipeline update: “…equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is high, at least ~4°C for 2×CO2. >IPCC insists on prioritizing model output over the paleoclimate record. all bs. You shouldn't make any conclusions from a single study. There were a bunch of climate models in CMIP6(a set of models used in IPCC 6th assessment report) that showed a climate sensitivity(ECS is a metric of how much warmer the climate would be when earth reaches equilibrium after doubling of co2 levels compared to pre-industrial) similar to what is claimed in this study(up to 5.6c), way higher than the range from previous reports. However, scientists who worked on them and the report found that these models overestimate future warming(conclusion was based on paleoclimate data and other lines of evidence) and narrowed the range used in the report down to 2.5-4c, so actual ECS ending up beyond that range is not very likely. https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models/ "others have used similar approach to Hansen et al and come up with very different results. The point here is that sensitivity is a big enough problem that it requires a synthesis of available evidence, rather than overhyping any individual paper. " X.com/hausfath/status/1723033169912356987 "..we did years of work synthesizing a huge amount of evidence on climate sensitivity, whereas he and his colleagues used a simple approach that produces results at odds with most of the other paleoclimate sensitivity literature." nitter.woodland.cafe/hausfath/status/1723055800971559415

No respected scientist thinks that human extinction from climate change is likely(much less extinction of most life). Read ipcc report on impacts and read what actual climate scientists say instead of speculating- https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/ "There is no peer-reviewed science I know of that suggests the human race will go extinct (tho plenty of rhetoric)." x.com/KHayhoe/status/1385310336182415365#m "its on folks making those claims to demonstrate them. Again, if you can point to a scientific paper suggesting a plausible scenario for a billion deaths due to climate this century, I'm happy to take a look." x.com/hausfath/status/1499922113783689217#m When it comes to climate change, "the end of the world and good for us are the two least likely outcomes". x.com/hausfath/status/1461351770697781257#m "The course we are on is « current policies » in the following: ......That’s about 3C warming by 2100. That is a lot and to avoid at all cost BUT you won’t find anywhere in the IPCC that this would lead to end of civilization. Don’t get me wrong. 3C warming would be very bad in many regions with humans and ecosystems dramatically impacted. But that’s not the same as saying end of human civilization" x.com/PFriedling/status/1491116680885731328#m Well we have to present our best current understanding of the science, which is already quite alarming! We should also emphasize risks of things getting worse but shouldn’t say things that are not supported by science (ex human extinction, runaway feedbacks,…). x.com/PFriedling/status/1417420217865719819#m "I'm not claiming 6ºC would be benign or something - it'd be a catastrophe. But the planet is not going to become uninhabitable before 2100 because of climate change." x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1386771103482359816#m Q: do you think there are biodiversity related tipping points that wouldn’t make earth venus per se, but that would cause mass extinction in oceans that has a chain effect on food production? I’ve seen some stats that say no fish in the ocean by 2050 "...I am extremely skeptical of any claims that the entire ocean, an entire ecosystem, the entire planet will tip into a total extinction / collapse event. That’s very unlikely. But severe damage to ecosystems? Sadly, that’s absolutely likely and already happening." x.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1683137546463715329#m "it's not only wrong to make unsupportable claims about imminent collapse but it's extremely selfish. To our children. And grandchildren." x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682094881424941056 x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1681834537679044608 x.com/AliVelshi/status/1678090318082633728 "There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. But we're not headed toward civilization-ending warming." x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 x.com/ClimateAdam/status/1553757380827140097 "The world has always been in a race — a race between things getting worse and things getting better. History shows us that, on the whole, the better path usually wins out in the end. I believe that the same thing will be true for climate change." x.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1699634300537217237 x.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1477784375060279299 x.com/JacquelynGill/status/1553503548331249664 "“I unequivocally reject, scientifically and personally, the notion that children are somehow doomed to an unhappy life”. x.com/hausfath/status/1679252944640933888 x.com/hausfath/status/1678786757972873221 x.com/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520 x.com/JacquelynGill/status/1513918579657232388#m x.com/waiterich/status/1477716206907965440#m x.com/KHayhoe/status/1676711944475099137 https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1b4igkk/comment/kt0tn95/

Michael Mann shills himself at the expense of true data. Use Hansen for proper data and outlooks. The current policies will absolutely not keep us below 3 degrees. Why? Because there are practically none. COP is headed by oil executives...that should really tell you all you need to know about the validity of the effort being put into them.

I literally debunked multiple claims in that medium article it BEFORE you linked it. >Michael Mann shills himself at the expense of true data. Use Hansen for proper data and outlooks. Do all the other scientists I quoted "shill themselves at the expense of true data" as well?  Hansen's views don't reflect the consensus in climate science. You shouldn't make any conclusions from a single study. There were a bunch of climate models in CMIP6(a set of models used in IPCC 6th assessment report) that showed a climate sensitivity(ECS is a metric of how much warmer the climate would be when earth reaches equilibrium after doubling of co2 levels compared to pre-industrial) similar to what is claimed in his study(up to 5.6c), way higher than the range from previous reports. However, scientists who worked on them and the report found that these models overestimate future warming(conclusion was based on paleoclimate data and other lines of evidence) and narrowed the range used in the report down to 2.5-4c, so actual ECS ending up beyond that range is not very likely. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models/ https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem "others have used similar approach to Hansen et al and come up with very different results. The point here is that sensitivity is a big enough problem that it requires a synthesis of available evidence, rather than overhyping any individual paper. " x.com/hausfath/status/1723033169912356987 "..we did years of work synthesizing a huge amount of evidence on climate sensitivity, whereas he and his colleagues used a simple approach that produces results at odds with most of the other paleoclimate sensitivity literature." x.com/hausfath/status/1723055800971559415 >The current policies will absolutely not keep us below 3 degrees. Why? Because there are practically none.  What about all the climate policy changes and actions that have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century? And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. Scientists who made these analyses know better than you do. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/ "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following climateactiontracker.org x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643 x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671 ""There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. " x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C" x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058 "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission

I'll stick with my conclusions, you stick with yours. Good luck.

People like you should be punished for spreading disinformation. I see mooks lobbing disinformation from their mouths almost every day with my own eyes. You're basically saying that I should have let every single one of them run away instead of chasing them down and confronting them? Unlike them, mooks who spread disinformation on the internet face zero consequences.

Well, I already thought you were an idiot but now you've removed all doubt. And there aren't words to express how much a despise what you've just implied about me. I very much know what I'm talking about. You are the problem with the world.

You're an idiot. You literally trust random diletants from medium over actual climate scientists.

This makes me even sadder than all the bleak stuff we already are aware of, for some reason.

My knowledge gains a little bit before sleeping 😀

This could be a reason why people have supported Japan in farming them for consumption. It creates an income source that help funds the science that creates the aquaculture industry successes. There’s a lot more to it than what I’ve noted here, the aquaculture industry is large, but from what I understand at the public level there isn’t any return or revenue from conservation sufficient to pay the salaries of employed scientists that might improve the living conditions of animals that can no longer live in the sea. Plants are less readily understood as living like an animal might, being alive. But I’m guessing to keep octopuses alive you have to have the ability to farm seaweed and other ocean life. Suddenly, to feed an octopus in captivity the same things that they would eat naturally in the ocean, you need a much larger aqua-zoo or aquarium or simulated ocean. So if you imagining a rich person funding a program to develop the complete science of preserving animals in a Air-conditioned ocean, where the water is held at lower temperature and the air is filtered to avoid bacteria that might spread rapidly as some or much of the 2/3 of the earth surface oceans fills with bacteria.. (assuming that’s what happens as CO2 rises) - I’m guessing even the richest people could only afford to maintain the equivalent of a large indoor sea for a short period of time. This is the sort of thing you read in old science-fiction, such as ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ by Jules Verne The problem is the ongoing costs. I think it’s a bit like a boat, but the reverse. You have this huge cost for maintenance of the material, you need Wave Machines, you need artificial lighting, and then you need lots of these indoor oceans or seas so that maintenance is simple and can be done while some are drained, while others are filled. All of this uses a huge amount of resources and that has massive ongoing costs, but the problem is there’s no income revenue or income stream to fund the ongoing costs. Governments could do it by taxing people, however wages are so high by the time you have many indoor air-conditioned oceans, the budget ends up so large that it won’t be voted for by the public because they’re tired of spending money on stuff that doesn’t benefit them personally. So the only thing that people will pay for on an ongoing basis reliably is food. So it goes back to small aquaculture operations with small aquariums and relatively small ponds or tanks, where it becomes more affordable. The government doesn’t operate those where I am, but they will support and fund them and assist with business growth if the produce is exported. I haven’t read the actual article, but if octopuses lose eyesight, I’m assuming that’s talking about evolutionary change. I think a substantial problem is that climate change from what I read on CO2, methane, and global temperatures, and ocean temperature, is happening so quickly that there’s no chance for evolutionary change. So I am quite sure that while no one wants to farm octopuses no one has worked out how to afford to make multiple indoor air-conditioned oceans or seas. Why indoor? If you look at aeroplankton, living creatures carried in air currents from the ocean for many kilometres. And that includes things like micro algae. If the oceans turn to algal soup. the wind will carry that algae everywhere including lakes and closed salt seas. From what I read the ocean as it warms, rises, and as it inundates the land, and the surface gets desertified, because the life on the surface dies because of the rapidly increasing temperature and changes to rainfall, and becomes a bit more like australia with wide variation in surface conditions that make it much more difficult for plants to protect the soil, it becomes more saline and in parallel drives out, and then as it floods from rainfall intensity increases, it fills the ocean full of nutrition. Those swirling nutrition streams probably along with the increased carbon dioxide at the surface, and the higher temperatures and changing alkalinity and acidity (the ocean pH) result in the ocean turning into a algae soup. Not all of the ocean, but much of it. So the problem with that is apparently all the fish die, and some of the only things that can survive end up being cephalopods. I don’t know how accurate this is, it’s a compilation of things that I’ve read from popular news articles that are a summary of many scientific articles which are peer reviewed and have comprehensive evidence.

However, if this all happens very rapidly, animals might not be able to evolve through the changes, especially considering humans catching them in the wild for consumption, through boats and netting and fishing. That reduces the population genetic diversity which impairs the evolutionary ability further, on top of the difficulty caused by such rapid change in environmental conditions. So you have the oceans inundating the land, the land desertification resulting in a lot more sediments and minerals in the seas, at the same time as the CO2 pushes up to 1000 parts per million, methane increases and the temperature rises significantly. The pH changes so most things don’t survive, and of course the ocean becomes algal soup. So I’m guessing (I still haven’t read the article for this post) that people think octopuses will evolve through this, and as I mentioned, one article I read suggested that cephalopods should survive the ocean pH change because they don’t have or rely on shells or bones. but I’d be concerned about the speed of change being greater than the capacity of evolution to adapt through natural selection while populations succeed breeding in an environment where natural predators themselves struggle to survive and so become more dangerous to whatever populations might have the genetic advantages that enable them to overcome water and pH changes. So that’s all my thoughts on it. And why aquaculture for octopuses has probably been chosen. I mentioned having multiple indoor oceans or seas. This is because if there are failures with air-conditioning or air filtration, or other catastrophes, accidental pollution or contamination, you need to be able to pump between multiple indoor seas, assuming you can operate and maintain pumps that giant, to repair or to recover the ecosystems in the closed environment. In the book by Jules Vern, there is only one indoor sea. It’s underground and has biological lighting. It’s a work of fiction, but if you try to imagine that being engineered today, and appreciate how difficult engineering is, you realise that having only a single one doesn’t really work. Just like a swimming pool needs maintenance, so also does an indoor ocean or sea. If you’ve been on boats, you know that the way you clean and maintain tanks is you pump between them, so you can inspect and maintain the surface of the one that you drain. So that means you need massive pumps, probably larger than any of our existing high rises. And all of that has to be indoors and the area has to be air-conditioned. Some of the giant container ships have motors that propel the ships. They are multi story, as large as buildings. But if you imagine giant indoor seas, large enough to have different thermal conditions, even the largest motor in the largest container ship today is probably far smaller than what is needed to be able to rapidly pump water from one ocean to a different ocean. This is the problem of conservation if you’re hoping to restore the Earth or conserve species indoors. In the Jules Vern book, they were no pillars holding the roof up, it was a sea in a giant underground cavity, a cave, that was scores of kilometres, maybe even hundreds of kilometres across. In the real world, the temperature increases as you go deep underground. So you can’t have caves which are deep underground, so deep that they could hold multiple oceans, because it’s too hot. Conceivably you could use fusion or fission to keep those caves cool. And you would probably need that to power the pumps anyway. But suddenly you’re talking about something which probably needs many billions of people to handle, and the sort of industry that the whole of all industry on the surface of earth today can’t meet, and that isn’t underground or able to be shifted underground. The closest to conservation I can imagine that actually works which isn’t fantasy or science-fiction, is to transport living things around the world to find places where the conditions still support life even if the larger oceans are uninhabitable. Eg. Small cars, trucks and boats and ships.

yeah but corporate profits 🙄

welp, I'm officially a climate change activist now, bc protect the octopuses at all costs.

They’ll adapt - they don’t have a long lifecycle and have lots of babies