4 ms·

I don’t think there is a single viable climate model that doesn’t rely on massive carbon capture. Carbon capture is one of many things we will have to do to avo

by cwhiz 6y ago

I don’t think there is a single viable climate model that doesn’t rely on massive carbon capture. Carbon capture is one of many things we will have to do to avoid mass extinction.

lucb1e 6y ago
Indeed. It won't be fast enough, but neither will we be fast enough stopping to emit. We have to do both. I'm not sure it's possible to reach the goal of staying below 2°C warming anymore, but the degree to which we incur change and damage the existing ecosystems can still be limited. Seeing how little we've managed to reduce carbon emissions by, and given that there will always be some emissions, we indeed need capture methods; heck, even if it's just trees, we need something. We need some way to recapture the remaining emissions, whatever reduced amount we'll be left with in the end. If you want to fund that sort of work today, Climeworks has a product where you can choose how many kg of CO2 you want to capture per year and pay for it. They have machines that indeed remove that actual amount for you, turning it into stone rather than something re-consumable. What they don't say is how much CO2e the building and operating of those machines emits and whether that'll be offset with said machines, but I'm happy to fund their technology either way. (I'm not affiliated with them in any way except having the subscription for about 1.5 years.) https://climeworks.com https://climeworks.com Other than tree planting organisations (which never seem to be able to convincingly promise that the trees won't be uprooted or burned for farmland before they captured the promised amount, especially given that the offerings are usually dirt cheap), I'm not aware of any other organisation offering products for consumers, so that's also why I'm arguing for people to give Climeworks money: if there's money to be made with it, more companies will start capturing carbon.
ghthor 6y ago
I dont agree with you, and there is a body of scientific evidence that is building that doesn't agree with you[1]. This evidence points to the most likely cause of mass extinction being changes to the sun and the environment of the solar system. In my opinion based on my research, if we are to avoid mass extinction, we need to be acknowledging the sun as the main driver of climate change on earth now and in the near future, not the emissions of our activity on earth. [1] https://otf.selz.com/item/pre-order-weathermans-guide-to-the-sun-third-edition https://otf.selz.com/item/pre-order-weathermans-guide-to-the...
- fnord77 6y ago
  This is not the consensus. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-...
  - ghthor 6y ago
    The consensus is wrong. Climate change is coming from the sun.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Sorry, that theory was properly discarded when it failed to match the observations.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  You're pointing to a book "authored" by a person who runs a pseudoscience YouTube channel and has no scientific training whatsoever. Please, start looking for information in less biased and more mainstream places - your worldview will be improved as a result.
  - ghthor 6y ago
    Please go back in time and tell that to anyone whi changed the paradigm science. I'm sure Galileo would appreciate your viewpoint. Ben Davidson is not a pseudo scientist and has plenty of training in the scientific method. I'll start listening to you if can predict earthquakes as good as the community developed by Ben over at quakeqatch.net
    - doodlebugging 6y ago
      You fat-fingered the URL. Should be quakewatch.net NOTE: I am not affiliated in any way, shape, form or fashion with that website and have no idea what they are peddling. I simply tried to visit the site and found the error in the URL. I am a geophysicist though who watches the USGS mapview of recent quakes every day. Going in now... If I'm not back in a couple of days tell my family they're some of my favorite people.

by cwhiz 6y ago

I don’t think there is a single viable climate model that doesn’t rely on massive carbon capture. Carbon capture is one of many things we will have to do to avoid mass extinction.

lucb1e 6y ago

Indeed. It won't be fast enough, but neither will we be fast enough stopping to emit. We have to do both. I'm not sure it's possible to reach the goal of staying below 2°C warming anymore, but the degree to which we incur change and damage the existing ecosystems can still be limited. Seeing how little we've managed to reduce carbon emissions by, and given that there will always be some emissions, we indeed need capture methods; heck, even if it's just trees, we need something. We need some way to recapture the remaining emissions, whatever reduced amount we'll be left with in the end. If you want to fund that sort of work today, Climeworks has a product where you can choose how many kg of CO2 you want to capture per year and pay for it. They have machines that indeed remove that actual amount for you, turning it into stone rather than something re-consumable. What they don't say is how much CO2e the building and operating of those machines emits and whether that'll be offset with said machines, but I'm happy to fund their technology either way. (I'm not affiliated with them in any way except having the subscription for about 1.5 years.) https://climeworks.com https://climeworks.com Other than tree planting organisations (which never seem to be able to convincingly promise that the trees won't be uprooted or burned for farmland before they captured the promised amount, especially given that the offerings are usually dirt cheap), I'm not aware of any other organisation offering products for consumers, so that's also why I'm arguing for people to give Climeworks money: if there's money to be made with it, more companies will start capturing carbon.

ghthor 6y ago

I dont agree with you, and there is a body of scientific evidence that is building that doesn't agree with you[1]. This evidence points to the most likely cause of mass extinction being changes to the sun and the environment of the solar system. In my opinion based on my research, if we are to avoid mass extinction, we need to be acknowledging the sun as the main driver of climate change on earth now and in the near future, not the emissions of our activity on earth. [1] https://otf.selz.com/item/pre-order-weathermans-guide-to-the-sun-third-edition https://otf.selz.com/item/pre-order-weathermans-guide-to-the...

fnord77 6y ago
This is not the consensus. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-...
- ghthor 6y ago
  The consensus is wrong. Climate change is coming from the sun.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Sorry, that theory was properly discarded when it failed to match the observations.
mdorazio 6y ago
You're pointing to a book "authored" by a person who runs a pseudoscience YouTube channel and has no scientific training whatsoever. Please, start looking for information in less biased and more mainstream places - your worldview will be improved as a result.
- ghthor 6y ago
  Please go back in time and tell that to anyone whi changed the paradigm science. I'm sure Galileo would appreciate your viewpoint. Ben Davidson is not a pseudo scientist and has plenty of training in the scientific method. I'll start listening to you if can predict earthquakes as good as the community developed by Ben over at quakeqatch.net
  - doodlebugging 6y ago
    You fat-fingered the URL. Should be quakewatch.net NOTE: I am not affiliated in any way, shape, form or fashion with that website and have no idea what they are peddling. I simply tried to visit the site and found the error in the URL. I am a geophysicist though who watches the USGS mapview of recent quakes every day. Going in now... If I'm not back in a couple of days tell my family they're some of my favorite people.