3 ms·

The recovering youth are getting breathing problems that aren't going away as well. It would be in their interest not to get it. It's also resetting our globa

by wolco 7y ago

The recovering youth are getting breathing problems that aren't going away as well. It would be in their interest not to get it. It's also resetting our global warming clock. Something youth were keen about getting the world to do. If they can't handle staying at home for an extended time then global warming might not be that important after all.

gpm 7y ago
This isn't resetting the global warming clock. Atmospheric CO2 is still going up not down. It's a temporary and small reduction in CO2 output coupled with a much more severe and much longer term reduction in scientific output that might actually solve global warming, and a much longer term and much more severe economic recession that limits our options to (further) hurt the economy to switch to greener means of energy production.
- DataWorker 7y ago
  Agree. This will ultimately be horrible for the environment. Environmental regulations will fall by the wayside and look at the price of oil.
- wolco 7y ago
  Not sure you can have it both ways. Either shutting down all Chinese factories for a period of time reduced CO2. Or they made no difference and we can run those factories without fear. Wouldn't a global recession/depression reduce production? Increased funding for scientific output or more climate models isn't going to make a difference. People have to buy and use less. You can't have it both ways here either.
  - gpm 7y ago
    If we set the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 to 0, a far greater reduction than actually occurred, we would be pausing the clock on global warming, which is a very far cry from resetting the clock. Yes, the emissions reduction helped, but not a fraction as much as you claimed. > Increased funding for scientific output or more climate models isn't going to make a difference. People have to buy and use less. You can't have it both ways here either. The science I'm most interested in isn't climate models. It's better solar panels, or better wind turbines, or better batteries, or better fission reactors, or (useful) fusion reactors, or space based solar shades, or ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and so on. People buying and using enough less unfortunately does not seem to be a realistic solution to the problem. People buying less might be able to delay us hitting disastrous amounts of warming by a few years, but that only buys us time for the above kinds of research.
gridlockd 7y ago
Aren't virologists predicting that 60-70% are going to get it, no matter what? What is the "extended time" that you are talking about? Close to half of COVID infections result not even in a cough. Going by the mostly elderly population on the Diamond Princess, mortality with proper treatment is going to be significantly lower than 1%. Flatten the curve? Sure, but we can't be locking down the entire country indefinitely. The youth already begrudge the elderly, locking them down for months will make them wish they were dead. Remember how a year felt like an eternity when you were 16? Also, most youth don't care about global warming either. They're just virtue signaling. It really isn't that important, if they understood what they would have to give up on to stop it, they would embrace it and look forward to spring break in North Dakota.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > Close to half of COVID infections result not even in a cough. Possibly? > Going by the mostly elderly population on the Diamond Princess, mortality with proper treatment is going to be significantly lower than 1%. If we're all sick at once can we all get proper treatment? We're all making assumptions and treating our ideas like they have to be true. We still don't actually know, we will only know in retrospective, and that's important to keep in mind. We can't know what's going to happen, and I think we need to be more cautious than optimistic. Where's the line between that an insanity? I don't know, but we can't act like we know the math, especially when we're getting equal and opposite information every day.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    We actually will not know even in retrospective, because the alternative scenarios will not play out. I am not saying everyone should get sick at once, a certain period of isolation is acceptable - for now. In the long term, it is not reasonable to isolate everyone. Covid-19 will stay with us for years.

by wolco 7y ago

gpm 7y ago

This isn't resetting the global warming clock. Atmospheric CO2 is still going up not down. It's a temporary and small reduction in CO2 output coupled with a much more severe and much longer term reduction in scientific output that might actually solve global warming, and a much longer term and much more severe economic recession that limits our options to (further) hurt the economy to switch to greener means of energy production.

DataWorker 7y ago
Agree. This will ultimately be horrible for the environment. Environmental regulations will fall by the wayside and look at the price of oil.
wolco 7y ago
Not sure you can have it both ways. Either shutting down all Chinese factories for a period of time reduced CO2. Or they made no difference and we can run those factories without fear. Wouldn't a global recession/depression reduce production? Increased funding for scientific output or more climate models isn't going to make a difference. People have to buy and use less. You can't have it both ways here either.
- gpm 7y ago
  If we set the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 to 0, a far greater reduction than actually occurred, we would be pausing the clock on global warming, which is a very far cry from resetting the clock. Yes, the emissions reduction helped, but not a fraction as much as you claimed. > Increased funding for scientific output or more climate models isn't going to make a difference. People have to buy and use less. You can't have it both ways here either. The science I'm most interested in isn't climate models. It's better solar panels, or better wind turbines, or better batteries, or better fission reactors, or (useful) fusion reactors, or space based solar shades, or ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and so on. People buying and using enough less unfortunately does not seem to be a realistic solution to the problem. People buying less might be able to delay us hitting disastrous amounts of warming by a few years, but that only buys us time for the above kinds of research.

gridlockd 7y ago

Aren't virologists predicting that 60-70% are going to get it, no matter what? What is the "extended time" that you are talking about? Close to half of COVID infections result not even in a cough. Going by the mostly elderly population on the Diamond Princess, mortality with proper treatment is going to be significantly lower than 1%. Flatten the curve? Sure, but we can't be locking down the entire country indefinitely. The youth already begrudge the elderly, locking them down for months will make them wish they were dead. Remember how a year felt like an eternity when you were 16? Also, most youth don't care about global warming either. They're just virtue signaling. It really isn't that important, if they understood what they would have to give up on to stop it, they would embrace it and look forward to spring break in North Dakota.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> Close to half of COVID infections result not even in a cough. Possibly? > Going by the mostly elderly population on the Diamond Princess, mortality with proper treatment is going to be significantly lower than 1%. If we're all sick at once can we all get proper treatment? We're all making assumptions and treating our ideas like they have to be true. We still don't actually know, we will only know in retrospective, and that's important to keep in mind. We can't know what's going to happen, and I think we need to be more cautious than optimistic. Where's the line between that an insanity? I don't know, but we can't act like we know the math, especially when we're getting equal and opposite information every day.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  We actually will not know even in retrospective, because the alternative scenarios will not play out. I am not saying everyone should get sick at once, a certain period of isolation is acceptable - for now. In the long term, it is not reasonable to isolate everyone. Covid-19 will stay with us for years.