721–730 of 884 posts
Why would anyone worry about things they have no control on? People that overestimate the value of their opinions, maybe.
But you have partial control. You can vote for candidates that take climate change seriously. You can decide to buy or lease an EV instead of an ICE one. You can raise the bar for when you book a flight. And so on...
[flagged]
Who is "he"?
> 1. Those models have increased accuracy.
GP, I've got your 1.
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2019/historical-climate-models-...
: The first result we found is that all of the 17 models correctly projected global warming (as opposed to either no warming or even cooling). While this is so unsurprising to climate scientists that it is not even mentioned in the paper, it may be surprising to non-experts. The second result is that most of the model projections (10 out of 17) published between 1970 and 2000 produced global average surface warming projections that were quantitatively consistent with the observed warming rate.
: While comparing global warming rates may seem like a straight-forward “apples to apples” comparison, it sweeps one very important difference between the simulated climate projections and reality under the rug: human behavior. Climate modelers have to guess at plausible future scenarios of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to feed into the model. Some modelers developed projections meant to be realistic predictions of what society would actually do (e.g. Nordhaus’ 1977 coupled climate-economic model), while others chose to estimate “worst-case” (high emissions) and “best-case” (low emissions) scenarios to bracket all plausible realities.
: When conducting our comparison, given this information, it became clear to us that simply comparing the warming rates between simulations and reality could be misleading, if the simulated emissions scenario and historical emissions were dramatically different. To account for differences in emissions between the simulations and reality, we calculated the warming rates with respect to anthropogenic radiative forcing, the rate at which human emissions trap energy at Earth’s surface, instead of calculating them with respect to time. Using this novel metric of the warming rate, we found that the model projections were even more consistent with reality (14 out of 17 models captured this).
> 2. Proposed economic responses to climate change do less harm than good.
As for 2, how much harm is being caused by more efficient autos, wind turbines and solar power, and battery storage? By feeding cattle a bit of seaweed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the same. I'm a quiet greenish person. I don't own a car I walk and I hate these death cults whose sole nihilism is that you shouldn't exist, you were born into Original Sin™ for being the wrong sex/gender/race/country, and when you aren't busy killing off things you enjoy, you yourself can only be green when you die. The logistical thing to these cults is suicide to prevent global warming, so they mentally circl…
> you were born into Original Sin™ for being the wrong sex/gender/race/country Which world do you live in? It can’t be Earth. Go outside and talk to people and please realize spending all your time online is bad for your health. What you’ve described here doesn’t exist.
https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets...
The rise of asylum seekers is due to this cult which believes in many of these sins. I am just as alarmed that it exists. They are the same political activists who failed to stop the pipeline have put their efforts here. Those caravans are NOT organic.
Why would anyone worry about things they have no control on? People that overestimate the value of their opinions, maybe.
But you have partial control. You can vote for candidates that take climate change seriously. You can decide to buy or lease an EV instead of an ICE one. You can raise the bar for when you book a flight. And so on...
Cars matter very little in the big picture as well -- it's a distraction to blame the little people.
The vast majority of pollution is caused by industrial processes. The fix here is simple: regulate and enforce the regulation.
The main polluting countries are:
the USA: too afraid to do anything in case it affects their economy, political caste too corrupt to do what's needed.
Russia: doesn't give a shit, mostly see global warming as a way to get more influence, more usable land, and have such a little population density anyway they can afford to fuck some of it.
India: polluting as a result of too many people and trying to catch up economically, but might get their shit together like China did.
Saudi Arabia: has built their whole state on an unsustainable dependency on burning more than half of the oil they extract just for AC and water, and is completely fucked regardless.
Why would anyone worry about things they have no control on? People that overestimate the value of their opinions, maybe.
The two most powerful things you can do: 1. Vote for the party that protects the environment 2. Work on smt that has positive climate impact
In my country people aren't stupid and do embrace reasonable and managed use of natural resources, regardless of party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know?
We know because it’s measurable. You. Literally YOU. Can trivially measure the impact of different gases on temperature. Telling the difference between natural and human produced is probably not doable by you personally, however, human burned pollution tends to have different atomic markers from naturally occurring. We have mandatory pollution reporting. We can do basic maths to find reasonably close numbers to how m…
We can measure anecdotaly that temperature is slightly rising. The reason why is it happening and happend in history multiple times is topic for debate that we can explore.
However your tone is not open for debate and use exactly same words as those you fight against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you have partial control. You can vote for candidates that take climate change seriously. You can decide to buy or lease an EV instead of an ICE one. You can raise the bar for when you book a flight. And so on...
It's not up to individuals to fix it. Your impact is nothing. Cars matter very little in the big picture as well -- it's a distraction to blame the little people. The vast majority of pollution is caused by industrial processes. The fix here is simple: regulate and enforce the regulation. The main polluting countries are: the USA: too afraid to do anything in case it affects their economy, political caste too corrupt…
Re global regulation you need to get the main players like the US, China and Russia to agree some sort of policy which is tricky but might be possible if people lobby their politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still. Moving now to North Europe because maybe 30 years from now you'll have to move? Why not wait it out and see if you have to move? The older you are when you move, the harder it is. New language, new culture, new laws, disconnection from your old friends who took a different path. And less time to contribute to a state pension — a skilled 30-year-old can be a welcome addition to a workforce, a 60-year-old migh…
> That said, the economics may radically change over the next 30 years; I think you're optimistic, I think we'll see mass layoffs 5-10 years from now for white collar work, and 5-10 years after that for expensive manual labor (like doctors etc). I think the gap between "solving" white collar work (e.g something similar to AGI) and solving humanoid autonomous work will be narrow, but that's just my hunch.
Also, even without AI, sufficiently cheap telepresence robots can do to for manual labour what Mechanical Turk and remote work (and possibly GenAI) is doing for desk jobs — "good enough" can be surprisingly poor quality if it comes with a small enough invoice.
However, my main point is that things are hard to predict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humanity not surviving? That seems completely unlinked to any sort of scientific consensus.
Oh... How many mass extinction events have humanity survived as a species so far? I would also like to see this data... pretty please?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bicycle machine emits nothing The tires and some types of brakes still emit micro plastics.
How much? If that's 1% of car (making this up), would this be a real practical issue? By the way this argumentation is great to sabotage any argument to keep the statusquo. When someone argues for a way better solution, tell why it's still not 100% perfect to make people to believe it has the same flaws than the previous state. Repeat until someone finds a 100% perfect solution (hint: there is never such a thing).
Exactly. The direction we need to head is obvious: Stop treating cities like wanna rural areas for poor people and turn them into actual cities, where everything is right there and travel isn't necessary – not by car, not by train, not by bike, not by anything.
But, indeed, a move from the status quo is uncomfortable, so we get silly things like "But, but, my bike is better than a car!", completely missing the forest for the trees.