41–50 of 185 posts
If you want proof as to how taboo climate science skepticism has become, look at how quickly (less than ten minutes) my sourced, rational comment in this thread was down voted and flagged. Flagged! For skepticism!
edit: looks like it's not even flagged anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just a layman, not a climate scientist, but I don't think the magnitude of the warming is our big issue. The issue is how quickly it's changing. Previous warming events happened very slowly; even the quickest ones occurred over thousands or tens of thousands of years. Ours is happening a couple orders of magnitude faster. We can look back, not at the geological record, but at the biological record. Large, fast sh…
>Previous warming events happened very slowly; even the quickest ones occurred over thousands or tens of thousands of years Here's the problem - we don't actually know how quickly historic shifts have occurred, because our evidence comes from geologic and fossil records that simply do not have good resolution past 1Ma or so. Especially consider all the doomsday runaway scenarios like the clathrate gun and melting per…
But the downside risk is the extinction of a huge swath of life on Earth. (The first species to go, historically, have been big animals with high metabolisms--things with similar volume/surface area ratios as us)
If you want proof as to how taboo climate science skepticism has become, look at how quickly (less than ten minutes) my sourced, rational comment in this thread was down voted and flagged. Flagged! For skepticism!
There is no way to be a "rational" and "sourced" climate skeptic because all roads lead to the same conclusions.
People like you will cause millions of deaths over the next 100 years.
It seems to me we are truly and globally fucked: 1. There were just massive protests and riots in France (a relatively ecologically-aware country) due to an increase in the diesel tax of about 8 cents a liter meant to help wean the country off carbon. As a result of the riots, the tax was cancelled. 2. Current US administration is going 180 degrees in the other direction, i.e. doing everything it can to support coal.…
At some point I do expect people will start having more serious discussions about how much climate engineering we are willing to undertake. Certainly the upper atmosphere sulfur dioxide injection has some plausible utility, in addition to being short-lived should it prove counterproductive. Collectively, humans seem to have more appetite for engineering our way out of problems than conserving.
I cannot take any of these reports seriously unless they are comparing emissions from each country on a per capita basis. This is an easy way to make US look like a responsible polluter compared to India and China. Its a different ball game, if you factor in the total emissions per capita over last 100 years, in which case, US emissions are probably a few multiples over China and India combined (that's my guess. I'm…
Also, reducing your population growth rate is a great way to reduce carbon emissions. A world with 500 million people living in luxury is arguably better than one with 15 billion where the living envy the dead.
Though you get to some key points. The most annoying issue is perhaps that China's emissions are largely a result of building crap for rich people in the US and Europe.
It seems to me we are truly and globally fucked: 1. There were just massive protests and riots in France (a relatively ecologically-aware country) due to an increase in the diesel tax of about 8 cents a liter meant to help wean the country off carbon. As a result of the riots, the tax was cancelled. 2. Current US administration is going 180 degrees in the other direction, i.e. doing everything it can to support coal.…
I'm reminded of Stein's Law. It is not exactly right, but it is how I feel this will likely play out. At least if reduction in carbon emissions is the only card we have in our hand. I.e. we will stop emitting carbon when (for all practical purposes) we run out. Not before. At some point I do expect people will start having more serious discussions about how much climate engineering we are willing to undertake. Certai…
If you want proof as to how taboo climate science skepticism has become, look at how quickly (less than ten minutes) my sourced, rational comment in this thread was down voted and flagged. Flagged! For skepticism!
Your flagged post began with an allegation of bad faith against the entire field of climate science. edit: looks like it's not even flagged anymore.
The article offhand mentions that we're on track for RCP 8.5, or 8.5 W/m^2 additional heat in 2100. That should fucking terrify you. That's 4 C global temperature rise, a .75 meter sea level rise, and a doubling of ocean acidity. Page 82 of the IPCC report[1] has some fast facts- at RCP 8.5 most of the wild animals on earth will start dying out from lack of freshwater. Corals and molluscs will die out, and all ocean…
I cannot take any of these reports seriously unless they are comparing emissions from each country on a per capita basis. This is an easy way to make US look like a responsible polluter compared to India and China. Its a different ball game, if you factor in the total emissions per capita over last 100 years, in which case, US emissions are probably a few multiples over China and India combined (that's my guess. I'm…
Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about per-capita emissions - it just cares about absolute concentrations of greenhouse gases. If you want to solve the problem, largest (in absolute terms - not per capita) emitters need to cut back. Somewhere in the world one human emits more CO2 per capita than everyone else in the world. If they stop emitting, we haven't solved anything.
Countries won't solve it. If Americans can own up to the fact that per capita reduction in co2 emissions by them, will have a huge effect on co2 emissions in the world (because that means practices/regulations/technology that'll trickle down to largest polluting countries.), then it'll mean genuine difference.
American media has no right to point fingers at countries that has never been among the highest per capita polluters in the world, and has been so historically. Sadly, Americans (those who are into virtue signaling) are too hung up on stuff fed by NYT to realize that they have been polluting the most, and them pontificating to others will help no one.
I cannot take any of these reports seriously unless they are comparing emissions from each country on a per capita basis. This is an easy way to make US look like a responsible polluter compared to India and China. Its a different ball game, if you factor in the total emissions per capita over last 100 years, in which case, US emissions are probably a few multiples over China and India combined (that's my guess. I'm…
Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about per-capita emissions - it just cares about absolute concentrations of greenhouse gases. If you want to solve the problem, largest (in absolute terms - not per capita) emitters need to cut back. Somewhere in the world one human emits more CO2 per capita than everyone else in the world. If they stop emitting, we haven't solved anything.