Maybe we start reducing CO2 level in the athmosphere (not only reduce CO2 output) ? Any plans for that (besides plant more trees)?
Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
61–70 of 522 posts
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#62I don't like sensationalism as it clouds the mind with short-lived buzzes. Instead of always trying to alarm people of the big invisible terror lurking in the dark, we should educate people on how to handle the situation. What are the scenarios? What can we do ourselves for those scenarios (not to prevent, but to prepare)? Which cities and countries will be lost at what point in time? How do we protect ourselves? Be…
The gap between sensationalism and pragmatism is measurement. The graph shows an accelerated growth of CO2 emission, but lacks exact profiling data to deduce reasonable actions.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#63Maybe we start reducing CO2 level in the athmosphere (not only reduce CO2 output) ? Any plans for that (besides plant more trees)?
Hopes, more like.
Capturing it from rich sources such as a big plant's chimney and storing it are still major problems, capturing it from the atmosphere is an obvious next step if/when those two are solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage is a good place to start reading.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#64I am terrified. Should I be?
.
I really don't get how you're blithely writing off 2 meters of sea level rise. Do you have any clue just how much value that'd destroy? Why do you value the lives of Bengalis living in low elevation areas so much less than your right to drive a gas guzzler cheaply?
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often wonder what we'll die of. Direct consequence of global warming like flooding, tornado, or heat wave? A worldwide epidemic? Will wealth be relevant in saving us from mass famines? A more indirect way such as massive riots caused by, say, the global disorganization of wealth? A global methane event, bursting out of the oceans, and burning the whole atmosphere? Or simply Trump deciding that global warming can on…
Please read up on the scientific consensus. No respectable scientist believes that a meter or 2 of sea level rise over the next 200 years is going to literally cause the world to end. Read the science. Go with the facts. Not the fake consequences that no scientist believes is going to happen.
Yes. No one believes the world is going to end.
The scientific consensus is trillions of dollars in annual damages globally along with plausibly millions of lives lost. No big deal.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buy shares in houseboat companies. Short sell coastal property.
You are likely to loose your shirt short-selling coastal property. For short-selling to be profitable, what you are short-selling should decrease in value, and do so rather quickly. The reason is that in the mean time you are required to reimburse the person you're borrowing the asset from for the revenue he would have had, had he held on to it. In the case of property that is the rental revenue. Time works against y…
[deleted]
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why bother? The IPCC, which is the official authority on climate change, says that over the next 200 years sea levels will rise by a meter or 2. Damaging, for sure. Trillions of dollars in costs. But not exactly world ending. Thats the scientific consensus. I look at the official statistics that the scientists provide, and I go "meh". If I had the choice between magically stopping climate change forever, and stopping…
Luckily, those aren't mutually exclusive choices. And climate change potentially causes wars as countries are strapped for resources, so acting to fix climate change is a twofer. Also: you are understating the cost of climate change. These estimates are tricky to get right, but the IPCC estimates a ballpark figure of 1-4% of GDP for a 4 degrees C increase in global mean temperature. That puts the cost on the order of…
4 degrees C is an absolute upper bound in the temperature predictions. The kind of thing you'd get if the world attempted to explicitly maximize CO2 output, instead of only pretending to minimize.
And then imagine if they did that for the next 80 years.
We are not going to climate change tomorrow, but I'd be awfully surprised if we haven't made some very good progress in the next 2 decades.
Solar prices have something like 10 to 100X decreased over the last 20 years, and there really isn't that much further (comparatively!) to go before they reach grid parity.
What I am saying is, that there are a whole lot of reasons to be optimistic about the future, and that panic seems a litter premature. We are currently easily on track to solving it, solely through normal capitalistic efforts that have created the amazing technology breakthroughs that we've seen over the last 2 decades.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#68Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#69Maybe we start reducing CO2 level in the athmosphere (not only reduce CO2 output) ? Any plans for that (besides plant more trees)?
AFAIK, planting more trees by itself doesn't really help in the long term, because trees eventually decompose releasing the carbon they captured.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often wonder what we'll die of. Direct consequence of global warming like flooding, tornado, or heat wave? A worldwide epidemic? Will wealth be relevant in saving us from mass famines? A more indirect way such as massive riots caused by, say, the global disorganization of wealth? A global methane event, bursting out of the oceans, and burning the whole atmosphere? Or simply Trump deciding that global warming can on…
Please read up on the scientific consensus. No respectable scientist believes that a meter or 2 of sea level rise over the next 200 years is going to literally cause the world to end. Read the science. Go with the facts. Not the fake consequences that no scientist believes is going to happen.
I don't understand your point, you're saying the scientific consensus is that we're not going to die, but I see a scientific consensus that keeps alerting us:
Tornadoes are already here and we believe they're more frequent because of GW. Epidemics are often quoted as a consequence of a warmer, more welcoming climate, along with the decay of bees, hence the famines. NYC is expected to be flooded several times before 2100. Scientists say we'll never keep it under 2 degrees, because of the acceleration of unforeseen methane emissions in permafrost, and they also say if we reach 6 degrees there will only be room for an order of magnitude fewer people on Earth. It all comes from scientists.
The only thing which I can see false in my parent comment is, we won't all die altogether from the same event, but I wasn't really saying that.