4 ms·

The article does a good job at keeping ideas within the realm of reality. > I especially like the idea of CO2 scrubbing for coal-fired power plants. Of course

by mrpopo 8y ago

The article does a good job at keeping ideas within the realm of reality. > I especially like the idea of CO2 scrubbing for coal-fired power plants. Of course to cut carbon emissions it would be better to ban coal-fired power plants. I don't like this idea at all. It shows that at the current rate of action, global warming handling is a tragedy. It's a life threatening issue for billions of us, yet nothing happens, only insignificant changes.

chrisco255 8y ago
Life threatening? Cold weather and lack of electricity kill far more people than global warming.
- roryisok 8y ago
  Right now they do.
- mrpopo 8y ago
  Currently yes, although it's not long before things are really going to change. I am not sure where you stand on this but here are a few things to think about : I assume you heard of the 1.5C target from the COP21. Depending on the estimations we already reached +1, and there is a lot of inertia in the whole system, so it's just not gonna happen. It's all a political "aim high, think later" thing. Without doing anything about the climate itself, thepeak oil and the people aversion to coal pollution will probably slow down our carbon addiction by the end of the century. Estimates for this scenario are within 7-12C. More optimistic scientific reviews, that assume we would give a fuck about it, are in the 3-7C range. Note that there are more centuries to come. Assume we reach a rather optimistic 4C global warming. This is a worldwide average, and you may know that oceans trap most of the heat, so the air above the oceans will not warm up as much. To compensate, it means that the air above land will be a couple degrees hotter, say 6C, and depending on how the winds will change, some place will get hotter than others (for instance currently the Arctic region is already 2C warmer than ours industrial levels). So even in an optimistic scenario today the average year round temperature in some place could get to +10C. If nothing is done, I'm not quite sure, but it's probably safe to say that it will be +20-30C in some areas. Maybe this kind of temperature delta can make you think of the kind of challenge the next generations would face. Vegetation (food) would die during heat waves, mass migrations, etc. When ice caps melt, the earth's albedo changes, and it reflects less sunlight. That's one of the mechanisms behind the transitions from an ice age to a warm age. The Arctic is currently melting at unprecedented rates, which means that the warming is unlikely to stop unless drastic changes are done. Global warming causes sea level rises, through dilatation due to heat, and melting of on-land ice (greenland, Antarctica). Current warming is enough to make sea levels rise by 1m. This is locked in (unstoppable). Estimates vary but including future warming, it may rise by 2.4m. Bangladesh is the poster child for rising sea level dangers. It's not just about loss of coastal areas (40%), but also increased salinity in drinking water, less fertile lands. People will lose their houses and starve. There's a lot more to global warming than this, and the literature is plenty. I invite you to discover it.
- mikeash 8y ago
  That’s like teetering on the edge of a cliff and saying, what’s the big deal, far more people die from heart disease than from falling off a cliff.
- SECProto 8y ago
  > Life threatening? Cold weather and lack of electricity kill far more people than global warming. Global warming is as much of an existential risk to humans as nuclear war. The rapid changes are causing species extinction and, if it hasn't started already, will cause ecosystem collapse. We're still very bad at understanding things like complex food webs to see exactly what effects it will have
205guy 8y ago
I'm not sure I saw any ideas in the article, just a lot of hemming and hawing (just like your quote from the article), but no real actionable takeaways. What good ideas did ou find in the article? PS: sandwiching is not appropriate when the positives are not relevant to the topic. For example: the author writes well, and though he presents no real point, he is polite about it.

by mrpopo 8y ago

chrisco255 8y ago

Life threatening? Cold weather and lack of electricity kill far more people than global warming.

roryisok 8y ago
Right now they do.
mrpopo 8y ago
Currently yes, although it's not long before things are really going to change. I am not sure where you stand on this but here are a few things to think about : I assume you heard of the 1.5C target from the COP21. Depending on the estimations we already reached +1, and there is a lot of inertia in the whole system, so it's just not gonna happen. It's all a political "aim high, think later" thing. Without doing anything about the climate itself, thepeak oil and the people aversion to coal pollution will probably slow down our carbon addiction by the end of the century. Estimates for this scenario are within 7-12C. More optimistic scientific reviews, that assume we would give a fuck about it, are in the 3-7C range. Note that there are more centuries to come. Assume we reach a rather optimistic 4C global warming. This is a worldwide average, and you may know that oceans trap most of the heat, so the air above the oceans will not warm up as much. To compensate, it means that the air above land will be a couple degrees hotter, say 6C, and depending on how the winds will change, some place will get hotter than others (for instance currently the Arctic region is already 2C warmer than ours industrial levels). So even in an optimistic scenario today the average year round temperature in some place could get to +10C. If nothing is done, I'm not quite sure, but it's probably safe to say that it will be +20-30C in some areas. Maybe this kind of temperature delta can make you think of the kind of challenge the next generations would face. Vegetation (food) would die during heat waves, mass migrations, etc. When ice caps melt, the earth's albedo changes, and it reflects less sunlight. That's one of the mechanisms behind the transitions from an ice age to a warm age. The Arctic is currently melting at unprecedented rates, which means that the warming is unlikely to stop unless drastic changes are done. Global warming causes sea level rises, through dilatation due to heat, and melting of on-land ice (greenland, Antarctica). Current warming is enough to make sea levels rise by 1m. This is locked in (unstoppable). Estimates vary but including future warming, it may rise by 2.4m. Bangladesh is the poster child for rising sea level dangers. It's not just about loss of coastal areas (40%), but also increased salinity in drinking water, less fertile lands. People will lose their houses and starve. There's a lot more to global warming than this, and the literature is plenty. I invite you to discover it.
mikeash 8y ago
That’s like teetering on the edge of a cliff and saying, what’s the big deal, far more people die from heart disease than from falling off a cliff.
SECProto 8y ago
> Life threatening? Cold weather and lack of electricity kill far more people than global warming. Global warming is as much of an existential risk to humans as nuclear war. The rapid changes are causing species extinction and, if it hasn't started already, will cause ecosystem collapse. We're still very bad at understanding things like complex food webs to see exactly what effects it will have

205guy 8y ago

I'm not sure I saw any ideas in the article, just a lot of hemming and hawing (just like your quote from the article), but no real actionable takeaways. What good ideas did ou find in the article? PS: sandwiching is not appropriate when the positives are not relevant to the topic. For example: the author writes well, and though he presents no real point, he is polite about it.