211–220 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the Conservative crowd, we need to characterize renewable energy as energy independence.
And carbon taxes as reducing regulation.
Given the external costs, big users are being subsidised by everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be honest. Climate science also needs to decide if it will be anthropocentric or not. As harsh as it sounds, if science is not supposed to be anthropocentric, then it doesn't matter to science if humanity becomes extinct or suffers. By definition. So if climate science is going to make human suffering or survival the key important issue, it should completely discard any language that it's about the earth and en…
Science is the process of learning how the universe works. It is not anthropocentric. What we choose to do with that knowledge is anthropocentric because we are humans. Science can tell us how fire works. We still have to decide what to do when our house catches on fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. They are not, hence your stance is disingenuous. The death of millions would be a statistical blip in geological timescale. By saying "The Earth will be fine," you are saying you don't find millions of deaths and suffering to be important enough to warrant a solution. And then when someone proposes a solution, because you don't like it, you bring out your hypothetical Bangladeshi farmer. 2. If you want to talk abo…
"The death of millions would be a statistical blip in geological timescale." Well, I actually do care about people. So, there's that. "In 1998, over 75% of the total area of the country was flooded, including half of the capital city Dhaka. ... 30 million people were made homeless and the death toll reached over a thousand." That's sad, all right. How many routinely died in famines before the advent of modern, high-e…
This is very bad (albeit completely unsurprising) news, but I really don't see that the word "threshold" is appropriate. Is there some special bad thing that happens once 410ppm is reached, that's qualitatively different from 400ppm? Nope. The article itself is quite clear about this: e.g., it quotes one climate scientist as saying "These milestones are just numbers, but they give us an opportunity to pause and take…
One thing that is universally ignored in this type of hysteria-promoting article is that all of the carbon in fossil fuels used to be in the atmosphere. Every atom of it. That's why they're called "fossil fuels". Guess what? The earth was just fine.
A problem with that argument is that the sun was about 20% dimmer back then. Hence it may get hotter this time around.
Does anyone have ideas on how a mid-career software developer can switch gears into the clean energy/climate change industry, to do something to help? I've come to think that climate change will be humanity's defining moment, and that we'll all be suffering greatly come mid-to-late-century. I want to do what I can to put my professional skills to use in helping. But I'm not sure where to even begin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to work on a way to make a convincing argument to the general public. Because the echo chamber here notwithstanding, where I live nobody really believes there is a climate problem, or at best they give it lip service while they drive their new Escalade to Starbucks for a $5 cup of coffee. I think that in reality we will not see people changing behaviors unless and until there are real observable climat…
I don't think complaining about people buying $5 cups of coffee at Starbucks is helpful for making a convincing argument. When you make statements like that, you give people the impression that your true motive is to attack capitalism and that raising environmental concerns are simply an underhanded tactic to do so. I understand your point about driving, but the brand of coffee and the cost is irrelevant and complain…
But yeah, you're right, highlighting the Starbucks is a bad plan here.
Highlighting all the ways in which being good for the environment is good for business is definitely a plus.
Does anyone have ideas on how a mid-career software developer can switch gears into the clean energy/climate change industry, to do something to help? I've come to think that climate change will be humanity's defining moment, and that we'll all be suffering greatly come mid-to-late-century. I want to do what I can to put my professional skills to use in helping. But I'm not sure where to even begin.
Your question inspired a blog post! Climate Change 2.0, How to Hack Your Way In To The Climate Change Revolution http://titojankowski.com/climate-change-2-0-how-to-hack-your... If you find this topic interesting, join the Google group Climate Change 2.0: A Call to Adventure https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!forum/climat...
This is just a list of (mostly) ill-informed questions rather than "Thought-Provoking Climate Change 2.0 Ideas", and certainly don't answer acabal's question, or the address title of the post.
I don't know much about climate science, but won't plants multiply and grow faster until we eventually hit a new equilibrium CO2 level? I guess the only danger is reaching thermal runaway before that happens? Then again, earth CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without signs that it killed off much life on Earth. Is rising CO2 that dangerous? Don't humans already have effective ways to reduce surface heating…
Life on Earth will be fine. The problem is the survival of our own species. It heavily relied in ~15,000 years of stable climate to flourish, and we're cutting that stability short.
Northern Europe, Japan and North America are roughly the most developed areas on Earth. They also have some of the most natural disasters and harshest weather.
I don't know much about climate science, but won't plants multiply and grow faster until we eventually hit a new equilibrium CO2 level? I guess the only danger is reaching thermal runaway before that happens? Then again, earth CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without signs that it killed off much life on Earth. Is rising CO2 that dangerous? Don't humans already have effective ways to reduce surface heating…
The current level of atmospheric CO2 is not unprecedented, but the current rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is. Couple that with massive ecological decimation and biodiversity due to human habitation and it is clear that our current predicament is geologically unprecedented.
If you have any links to sources that show otherwise, that would be appreciated.
I don't know much about climate science, but won't plants multiply and grow faster until we eventually hit a new equilibrium CO2 level? I guess the only danger is reaching thermal runaway before that happens? Then again, earth CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without signs that it killed off much life on Earth. Is rising CO2 that dangerous? Don't humans already have effective ways to reduce surface heating…
On a species level we'll probably survive it, but that doesn't mean it won't be disastrous at the individual level. Suppose, for example, that a natural disaster reduces the human population by 50$ over a few decades. Humanity survives, but the deaths of 3-4 billion people would be pretty awful.
I don't see why death from climate change is worse than death by any other means.
Maybe you mean that we should minimise the number of deaths, which implies our ideal global population isn't much less than the current level. That's debatable.