5 ms·
This of course boldly assumes that human kind is the main source of carbon emissions, and as boldly assumes that Earth can't really have all this carbon in atmo
by dozzie 11y ago
This of course boldly assumes that human kind is the main source of carbon emissions, and as boldly assumes that Earth can't really have all this carbon in atmosphere.
- claudius 11y agoWell, if the first assumption doesn’t hold, we’ll have to restrict our usage even more. Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C.
- dozzie 11y agoIf the first assumption doesn't hold, restricting ourselves will not matter. > Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C. This one assumes the carbon is main or even major substance that keeps heat on Earth. You do realize that we have much more water in the atmosphere, and water keeps heat much better than carbon? It's not as simple as "more carbon, higher temperatures".
- pjc50 11y agoYes, and there's a positive feedback loop between the two ("forcing").
- coldtea 11y agoYeah, damn that scientific consensus.
- dozzie 11y agoThis scientific consensus already made several heavily wrong estimates. And mind you, we don't have a working, proven model of climate change. We only have some speculations based on some proxy variables, and those speculations tend to ignore most basic physics or statistics (e.g. discussing changes of temperature that are way below observational errors currently possible, or focus on marginal CO2 concentration, while H2O concentration is larger of orders of magnitude, and H2O has, for instance, much higher thermal capacity).
- anexprogrammer 11y agoI would far rather we incorrectly rushed to decarbonise and replace with renewables than assume the science is wrong and have an oh fuck we're doomed moment in 30 or 40 years. I won't care, I'll probably be dead by then. My children would. Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities.
- explorigin 11y ago> Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities. But it's not all benefit. In rushing to decarbonize, we use alternative energy sources. A lot of battery and solar technology uses heavy metals that break down and seep into the water supply when they are improperly discarded. There are no magic bullet answers, the only solution is a holistic one and so far, only the climate scientists have won the attention of the politicians. Validity arguments aside, it makes you wonder if there's an ulterior motive.
- cel1ne 11y agoSo there are thousands of climate scientists which came, over and over again, to the same conclusion: that the extent of current heating is caused by co2 release, which is caused by coal-burning by mankind. Those have all made several mistakes and continue to make them and the 15 scientists or so who are of a different opinion are probably right? Is that what you are saying?
- dozzie 11y agoWe had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't establish world-scale policies based on astronomy.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]