The concurrence of three climatic events

Post by Retric » Mon, Jun 12, 2023, 8:42 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #243

Retric wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solving climate change doesn’t require dramatic long term changes to the cost of energy. Economically it’s mostly a question of sunk costs as our infrastructure is built around fossil fuels. However, infrastructure has a finite lifespan meaning gradually changing things is vastly less expensive, though you do need to actually start changing things. Thus ideas like increasing carbon taxation so economies optimize for…

Carbon taxes are unpopular because you are literally pulling future damage done to the economy, which cannot be observed, only predicted, and making people pay for it today, when the harm hasn't arrived yet. People think that this is pointless or even harmful because they don't like paying for things and expect others to bear the costs. I have no idea how to fix it. Even when you tell people about it, they will disag…

Post by soperj » Mon, Jun 12, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

distortionfield wrote: post #267

soperj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got 40 years of data on Antarctic sea ice, and over the last 4 decades it's been growing, not retreating. [1] [1] https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

The trends section in that graph shows all sections of ice in decreasing trends, what the hell are you on about

Post by distortionfield » Mon, Jun 12, 2023, 9:10 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #303

distortionfield wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trends section in that graph shows all sections of ice in decreasing trends, what the hell are you on about

Only if you're looking at the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

Post by PogoPuppy » Mon, Jun 12, 2023, 9:12 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #296

readthenotes1 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about 5⁰C cooler here today than yesterday. Crisis averted . What I am trying to say is you cannot use specific weather events to talk about climate. And of course once you go into statistics, you will lose 55.3% of your persuasiveness.

Weather events, by themselves, are just individual data points. But once you start looking at the big picture, it's difficult to not notice patterns. And said patterns are extremely alarming.

Post by idlewords » Mon, Jun 12, 2023, 9:18 PM UTC

black_puppydog wrote: post #279

idlewords wrote: post #52

As this post hints at in the discussion of sulfur emissions at sea, all it takes to significantly slow global warming is one country or sufficiently motivated non-state actor deciding to go all-in on geoengineering (like seeding the stratosphere with sulfur dioxides). Compare this to the collective action problem of everyone, including rapidly industrializing poorer countries, spending trillions to decarbonize their…

You do realize that even if it might work, and even if there weren't any other side effects like acid rain, this would essentially make every piece of sky on every day hazy. We'd essentially trade the very concept of "blue sky" for a livable temperature. Kinda hard to put a price on that for me. Maybe I'd prefer living with genuinely less comfort but blue skies.