3 ms·

Global warming at it again

cranekam 6y ago
Move along, nothing to see here. How many more scary warning signs will we need to see before taking climate change seriously?
- cameldrv 6y ago
  I don't think this is the warning sign. This is the consequence happening.
  - cranekam 6y ago
    Well, so much the worse then. This stuff is happening right in front of us and we’re still doing ~nothing about it.
    - konjin 6y ago
      It's worse than nothing. Even the people who supposedly take this seriously don't understand how much trouble we are in. When I've talk to people who 'believe' in climate change they still think that it's the increase in CO2 emissions that's the problem, not that CO2 emissions exist. The atmosphere is like a clogged toilet, you can do your business it in only two or three times before you end up with a mess everywhere. And even if you only use it once going into the bathroom will be unpleasant. Right now it's like a family of 5 is arguing at breakfast if they can use it whenever they feel like it, or only once a day. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills listening to people argue if we should limit our emissions to 90s level by 2050. We should be at zero now, and working on CO2 extraction from the atmosphere if we want to have a planet that can sustain industrial civilization in a century. Playing around with renewables and batteries completely misses the point. We need fission power plants yesterday and going full steam ahead on hot fusion plants today. Even if we build nothing but Chernobyl style plants and one blows up every two weeks, we will still kill fewer people in the long term than if we continue the way we are now, and that's with the rosiest renewable power projections that ignore things like base load.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    It's both. It's a reminder of a feedback loop: greenhouse [IR trap] increase of emissions -------------> global temperatures ^ | | [methane from | | melting permafrost] | ------------------------- It's a consequence, and a warning that it will happen again, and again, and again, until life on this planet is so hard for us that nations will be at each other's throats, just trying to survive, and then we can kiss human civilization goodbye.
- ars 6y ago
  We don't need warning signs, we need an alternative energy source. Or we need environmentalists to stop attacking nuclear power.
  - cranekam 6y ago
    We need political will and regulation. A carbon tax will dissuade emitting carbon and steer investment into low carbon technology. Unfortunately, given our short-term political landscape, this looks highly unlikely to happen. Nuclear: yes, it’s a huge shame that nuclear is in decline. Not sure how much is due to environmentalists over people being generally scared of the technology. The Fukushima disaster didn’t help its popularity.
    - donw 6y ago
      Fukushima happened in 2011. The global anti-nuclear movement has been fighting tooth-and-nail against nuclear power since the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_anti-nuclear_mo...
  - adrianN 6y ago
    We have alternative energy sources. We don't have the political will to invest in the energy transition. Or least to stop the subsidies for fossil fuels.

Move along, nothing to see here. How many more scary warning signs will we need to see before taking climate change seriously?

cameldrv 6y ago
I don't think this is the warning sign. This is the consequence happening.
- cranekam 6y ago
  Well, so much the worse then. This stuff is happening right in front of us and we’re still doing ~nothing about it.
  - konjin 6y ago
    It's worse than nothing. Even the people who supposedly take this seriously don't understand how much trouble we are in. When I've talk to people who 'believe' in climate change they still think that it's the increase in CO2 emissions that's the problem, not that CO2 emissions exist. The atmosphere is like a clogged toilet, you can do your business it in only two or three times before you end up with a mess everywhere. And even if you only use it once going into the bathroom will be unpleasant. Right now it's like a family of 5 is arguing at breakfast if they can use it whenever they feel like it, or only once a day. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills listening to people argue if we should limit our emissions to 90s level by 2050. We should be at zero now, and working on CO2 extraction from the atmosphere if we want to have a planet that can sustain industrial civilization in a century. Playing around with renewables and batteries completely misses the point. We need fission power plants yesterday and going full steam ahead on hot fusion plants today. Even if we build nothing but Chernobyl style plants and one blows up every two weeks, we will still kill fewer people in the long term than if we continue the way we are now, and that's with the rosiest renewable power projections that ignore things like base load.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  It's both. It's a reminder of a feedback loop: greenhouse [IR trap] increase of emissions -------------> global temperatures ^ | | [methane from | | melting permafrost] | ------------------------- It's a consequence, and a warning that it will happen again, and again, and again, until life on this planet is so hard for us that nations will be at each other's throats, just trying to survive, and then we can kiss human civilization goodbye.
ars 6y ago
We don't need warning signs, we need an alternative energy source. Or we need environmentalists to stop attacking nuclear power.
- cranekam 6y ago
  We need political will and regulation. A carbon tax will dissuade emitting carbon and steer investment into low carbon technology. Unfortunately, given our short-term political landscape, this looks highly unlikely to happen. Nuclear: yes, it’s a huge shame that nuclear is in decline. Not sure how much is due to environmentalists over people being generally scared of the technology. The Fukushima disaster didn’t help its popularity.
  - donw 6y ago
    Fukushima happened in 2011. The global anti-nuclear movement has been fighting tooth-and-nail against nuclear power since the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_anti-nuclear_mo...
- adrianN 6y ago
  We have alternative energy sources. We don't have the political will to invest in the energy transition. Or least to stop the subsidies for fossil fuels.