5 ms·

I'm not a "denialist" by any stretch, I believe CO2 causes warming. I believe the scientists probably know at least somewhat of what they speak (although I am s

by mythrwy 10y ago

I'm not a "denialist" by any stretch, I believe CO2 causes warming. I believe the scientists probably know at least somewhat of what they speak (although I am skeptical of timelines). That being said, what is feasible to do? Stop eating hamburgers? Drive Teslas? Carbon Tax Credits derived in meetings attended by people who arrive in jets? There just isn't a practical solution in sight. There really isn't. Just feel good type measures that don't solve the problem and wont. Never mind that the science is a bit unclear on exactly what, when and how much. It's a global problem. The "globe" hasn't been able to effectively work together to solve much simpler problems like drugs and human trafficking at any scale. And this is a bigger problem requiring more collaboration. I'm sorry, for all the hand wringing effective solutions are just not going to happen. No how, no way. Not in a timely manner. The only "real" solution in sight that I see is a massive population decrease through war or famine or plague. Or else sudden loss of civilization and technology which will produce the same thing. Is that price worth the benefits? I may consider this when "timelines" actually turn out as predicted. Until that time I'm driving a car and eating hamburgers. And living somewhere away from coastlines.

knz 10y ago
Personally I think we are way past prevention and rapidly approaching the last hope for mitigation of climate change. The answer doesn't have to be a massive population decline - measures like reducing our emissions from power generation (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... - 29%) and more electrified transportation would have a real impact. It is unrealistic to assume dramatic lifestyle changes will help us but instead of wasting billions of wars and walls we could be investing in renewable energy and more efficient use of carbon fuels. Instead we have an administration pushing hard in the opposite direction - investing in coal and oil, removing fuel economy improvements, and destroying the ability of organizations like NASA to even observe the effects of climate change. It's madness.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > measures like reducing our emissions from power generation and more electrified transportation would have a real impact. This always confuses me, because human CO2 emissions are about 3% of natural emissions. If the planet were so sensitive to +/- 3%, wouldn't it have gone past the point-of-no-return millions of years ago? But here we are today, and the ice core data shows wild fluctuations over periods of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years that greatly exceed anything we've experienced.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ximeng 10y ago
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha... Page 471 has a pretty clear diagram that explains the change - increase beyond the natural ability of the carbon cycle to mitigate the change leading to steady increases in industrial area (last 150 years effectively). I don't see ice core data showing wild fluctuations over periods of 10-100k years and the ppm of atmospheric carbon is relatively stable over this period.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      Some say that the IPCC is an unreliable source, considering the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown about their political bias and manipulation of results. How would you answer that concern?
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        I see, answered by downvoting. Insert fingers in ears, close eyes, move right along, nothing to see here.
        ximeng 10y ago
        I didn't down vote (or answer). I don't have an opinion on the bias, having only read through the scientific report, but do think the science on the IPCC side looks better than anything I've seen on the other side, and that reasons for it being biased exist on both sides. Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
clock_tower 10y ago
> That being said, what is feasible to do? On a personal scale, at least: live close to work, and save as much money as you can; the amount you spend is a tolerably good measure of your carbon footprint. The ideal would be to live close to work, save money, and do a bit of backyard bio-sequestration (like growing dwarf hazelnut trees and burying the nuts' hulls); but it's not likely that you'll have a backyard if you're living close to work. Cities with compost collection are the next best thing on this score, then.
noiv 10y ago
> I believe CO2 causes warming. You _believe_ CO2 is a greenhouse gas? How sure are you about 2 + 2 = 4?
- asah 10y ago
  vocal emphasis translated badly to computer screen: noiv meant __I__ believe CO2 causes warming [even e.g. if there's debate among politicians] (hehe, __I__ believe noiv meant...)

by mythrwy 10y ago

knz 10y ago

Personally I think we are way past prevention and rapidly approaching the last hope for mitigation of climate change. The answer doesn't have to be a massive population decline - measures like reducing our emissions from power generation (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... - 29%) and more electrified transportation would have a real impact. It is unrealistic to assume dramatic lifestyle changes will help us but instead of wasting billions of wars and walls we could be investing in renewable energy and more efficient use of carbon fuels. Instead we have an administration pushing hard in the opposite direction - investing in coal and oil, removing fuel economy improvements, and destroying the ability of organizations like NASA to even observe the effects of climate change. It's madness.

alphapapa 10y ago
> measures like reducing our emissions from power generation and more electrified transportation would have a real impact. This always confuses me, because human CO2 emissions are about 3% of natural emissions. If the planet were so sensitive to +/- 3%, wouldn't it have gone past the point-of-no-return millions of years ago? But here we are today, and the ice core data shows wild fluctuations over periods of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years that greatly exceed anything we've experienced.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ximeng 10y ago
  https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha... Page 471 has a pretty clear diagram that explains the change - increase beyond the natural ability of the carbon cycle to mitigate the change leading to steady increases in industrial area (last 150 years effectively). I don't see ice core data showing wild fluctuations over periods of 10-100k years and the ppm of atmospheric carbon is relatively stable over this period.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    Some say that the IPCC is an unreliable source, considering the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown about their political bias and manipulation of results. How would you answer that concern?
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      I see, answered by downvoting. Insert fingers in ears, close eyes, move right along, nothing to see here.
      - ximeng 10y ago
        I didn't down vote (or answer). I don't have an opinion on the bias, having only read through the scientific report, but do think the science on the IPCC side looks better than anything I've seen on the other side, and that reasons for it being biased exist on both sides. Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

clock_tower 10y ago

> That being said, what is feasible to do? On a personal scale, at least: live close to work, and save as much money as you can; the amount you spend is a tolerably good measure of your carbon footprint. The ideal would be to live close to work, save money, and do a bit of backyard bio-sequestration (like growing dwarf hazelnut trees and burying the nuts' hulls); but it's not likely that you'll have a backyard if you're living close to work. Cities with compost collection are the next best thing on this score, then.

noiv 10y ago

> I believe CO2 causes warming. You _believe_ CO2 is a greenhouse gas? How sure are you about 2 + 2 = 4?

asah 10y ago
vocal emphasis translated badly to computer screen: noiv meant __I__ believe CO2 causes warming [even e.g. if there's debate among politicians] (hehe, __I__ believe noiv meant...)