21–30 of 133 posts
To the meat: > We estimate that abrupt permafrost thawing in lowland lakes and wetlands, together with that in upland hills, could release between 60 billion and 100 billion tonnes of carbon by 2300.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a question: What if I don't care about "future generations"?
Not a problem at all. Just admit it so we can be honest about where your arguments come from.
They will obscure the axioms they're arguing from so as to not get immediately dismissed, and instead just look rational at a glance and intellectually dishonest when you ask too many questions or read too carefully.
Props to CzechTech for being upfront at least.
This is an emergency; it's well past time we started acting like it: https://rebellion.earth/
[1] e.g. preventing them getting to work or flying to a holiday [2] Extinction Rebellion Protests: What happened? - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-48051776
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fear and panic do not make a strategy; taking the issue seriously is, from a risk-management perspective.
NASA testified to the US Senate in 1988 that "higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution". [1] So, with more than 30 years of taking the issue seriously, what do you suppose we should do, from a risk-management perspective? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-beg...
"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2030. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
...
The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown."
All of that is accurately quoted with one exception. That article was published in 1989, the 'point of no return' was 2000, not 2030. And incidentally this year makes 30 years since that article was published. In spite of the "the most conservative estimate" showing an expected temperature rise of 1 to 7 degrees in these 30 years, we've seen the temperature increase by 0.62 degrees since 1989. [2] And global CO2 emissions have spiked far higher and faster than anybody could have imagined due in large part to China's ultra-rapid industrialization.
Imagine you could go back in time 30 years ago armed with all the knowledge of today, and had the power to do whatever you could to try to enact action on climate change. What would you do? I think the most logical thing to do would be to put out pinpoint accurate predictions. When you do this you'd establish a substantial degree of reliability in the field. And then when the predictions start looking increasingly dire, you'd have decades of accuracy to justify action.
And I think we can start this today. We need to focus on accuracy above any and everything else. When you want to enact global change you first need to establish yourself as a reliable authority. Then what we can do is look back and emphasize how accurate our predictions have been. But without reliability, we cannot expect predictions to actually drive any change that would be in any way inconvenient.
[1] - https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
[2] - https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast,..." No it isn't. Arctic sea ice extent is normal and cyclical as can be seen from the Danish meteorological institute's data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
How does your statement follow from the graph you link? It clearly shows the years 2015-present are more than 2 standard deviations below the average from 1981-2000.
This is an emergency; it's well past time we started acting like it: https://rebellion.earth/
It may well be an emergency, but inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work. In my opinion it will make them deaf to the underlying message (Although, I can provide no suggestions for strategies that might work!). [1] e.g. preventing them getting to work or flying to a holiday [2] Extinction Rebellion Protests: What happened? - ht…
To the meat: > We estimate that abrupt permafrost thawing in lowland lakes and wetlands, together with that in upland hills, could release between 60 billion and 100 billion tonnes of carbon by 2300.
Is this unique to human caused climate change or does it happen each time earth heats up?
This is an emergency; it's well past time we started acting like it: https://rebellion.earth/
It may well be an emergency, but inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work. In my opinion it will make them deaf to the underlying message (Although, I can provide no suggestions for strategies that might work!). [1] e.g. preventing them getting to work or flying to a holiday [2] Extinction Rebellion Protests: What happened? - ht…
The only further point I'd make is that less 'inconvenient' strategies (organising, lobbying, campaigning) have already failed. They've been tried relentlessly for 3 decades, and it's a done deal: they didn't work. Our civilisation is accelerating its path to global destruction (of which climate change is only one component). Emergency last-ditch strategies are all that's left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I could downvote this 100 times. I wonder how future generations will explain our decision to just stand in front of an oncoming freight train. I remember growing up as a kid watching the intro sequence to the road warrior and thinking it was entertaining but pretty unlikely that we’d screw up that badly. But now it seems pretty prophetic.
Here's a question: What if I don't care about "future generations"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I could downvote this 100 times. I wonder how future generations will explain our decision to just stand in front of an oncoming freight train. I remember growing up as a kid watching the intro sequence to the road warrior and thinking it was entertaining but pretty unlikely that we’d screw up that badly. But now it seems pretty prophetic.
Here's a question: What if I don't care about "future generations"?