5 ms·

The first link says we can learn to adapt to the massive changes brought about by global warming. The second link says we are unlikely to keep global warming i

by jiofih 6y ago

The first link says we can learn to adapt to the massive changes brought about by global warming. The second link says we are unlikely to keep global warming in this century below 2.7° Fahrenheit (1.5° Celsius) which has severe consequences for the environment. I think you’re reading into their optimistic language a bit too much. Do you watch the news? Have you seen a completely ice-free North Pole earlier in January? The ice in Norway, Russia and Iceland melting completely, permanently damaging the permafrost and releasing huge amounts of methane? Might be hard to notice from your apartment but the weather is going absolutely nuts in most of the world. Insect populations down by up to 90%. These are not “feelings”.

Grimm1 6y ago
"It’s true that without dramatic action in the next couple of decades..." You missed the first part of their sentence. On the flipside perhaps you're a little too much into doomsday scenarios? We've quite literally transformed the entire planet and way of living inside of 30 years since personal computation technology took off. I really don't see it as particularly farfetched that we can correct for our negative consumptive habits inside of the same timeframe, considering our rate of advance and change only accelerated within that same timeframe. I'll live out just the end of this century if I'm lucky so I'll be able to eat my words just fine if I'm wrong, but I'll bet you I'm not.
- nextaccountic 6y ago
  Do you seriously think we actually do this "dramatic action" in the next couple of decades? If we manage to get it started, what if another Trump gets elected and sabotage it from the top?
  - hanselot 6y ago
    How many governments have commited to doing something about the irreversible damage being done to the ocean by overfishing? Everyone here is going crazy about climate change, when it is very well known information that eating fish is the greatest current contributor to climate change. (See Seaspiracy) So would you mind explaining what Orange man bad has done differently to any other puppet placed on the US throne? He withdrew from trash agreements that do nothing to actually improve climate change, yes. Based on your profile I would guess that you are the kind of person preaching to everyone about using plastic straws while eating your poisonous salmon nagiri.
- jiofih 6y ago
  How about these lines then: > Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries or > In the absence of major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by an average of 6 °C There is not much major action going on (except for the electrification of vehicles which is being driven by commercial venture) so your hopes are just that, hope. Hope is not a strategy. It is quite far fetched to expect a correction when literally all data points are going the other way. Your view does not reflect the common scientific consensus. We’re at a stage where changes are irreversible and all we can do is minimize and prepare for them, as seen in the article. This is not fatalism, much to the contrary: I’m saying corrective action is much, much more urgent than you seem to believe and has to be started immediately. We don’t have another 30 years to sit on it.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    You keep picking half sentences that leave off the part saying we can do things to prevent catastrophe. At this point I can only believe you aren’t coming from a place of intellectual honesty. You also keep saying scientific consensus and data points but considering I keep finding information to the contrary and you’ve provided nothing I really think you mean your own personal and emotion driven stance. Of which I don’t buy. Yup climate change is a big issue, we'll probably solve it to a point humanity and the broader earth will be fine in a reasonable time. Just like every other crazy things we've pulled off during the same geological instant.
    - jiofih 6y ago
      I’m puzzled. The sentences I quote are straight from the article, and it doesn’t go much further than that. It’s five paragraphs long. It doesn’t show any possibilities for reversal or offer an alternative scenario. All it offers is a meaningless “it’s up to us what happens next”. Where is the information to the contrary you see? Here is an extensive report, from the same source, on the effects of predicted global warming: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-g... Read it carefully, and note that the 1.5C scenario is extremely optimistic and assumes humanity will zero out emissions completely by 2050.

by jiofih 6y ago

Grimm1 6y ago

"It’s true that without dramatic action in the next couple of decades..." You missed the first part of their sentence. On the flipside perhaps you're a little too much into doomsday scenarios? We've quite literally transformed the entire planet and way of living inside of 30 years since personal computation technology took off. I really don't see it as particularly farfetched that we can correct for our negative consumptive habits inside of the same timeframe, considering our rate of advance and change only accelerated within that same timeframe. I'll live out just the end of this century if I'm lucky so I'll be able to eat my words just fine if I'm wrong, but I'll bet you I'm not.

nextaccountic 6y ago
Do you seriously think we actually do this "dramatic action" in the next couple of decades? If we manage to get it started, what if another Trump gets elected and sabotage it from the top?
- hanselot 6y ago
  How many governments have commited to doing something about the irreversible damage being done to the ocean by overfishing? Everyone here is going crazy about climate change, when it is very well known information that eating fish is the greatest current contributor to climate change. (See Seaspiracy) So would you mind explaining what Orange man bad has done differently to any other puppet placed on the US throne? He withdrew from trash agreements that do nothing to actually improve climate change, yes. Based on your profile I would guess that you are the kind of person preaching to everyone about using plastic straws while eating your poisonous salmon nagiri.
jiofih 6y ago
How about these lines then: > Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries or > In the absence of major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by an average of 6 °C There is not much major action going on (except for the electrification of vehicles which is being driven by commercial venture) so your hopes are just that, hope. Hope is not a strategy. It is quite far fetched to expect a correction when literally all data points are going the other way. Your view does not reflect the common scientific consensus. We’re at a stage where changes are irreversible and all we can do is minimize and prepare for them, as seen in the article. This is not fatalism, much to the contrary: I’m saying corrective action is much, much more urgent than you seem to believe and has to be started immediately. We don’t have another 30 years to sit on it.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  You keep picking half sentences that leave off the part saying we can do things to prevent catastrophe. At this point I can only believe you aren’t coming from a place of intellectual honesty. You also keep saying scientific consensus and data points but considering I keep finding information to the contrary and you’ve provided nothing I really think you mean your own personal and emotion driven stance. Of which I don’t buy. Yup climate change is a big issue, we'll probably solve it to a point humanity and the broader earth will be fine in a reasonable time. Just like every other crazy things we've pulled off during the same geological instant.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    I’m puzzled. The sentences I quote are straight from the article, and it doesn’t go much further than that. It’s five paragraphs long. It doesn’t show any possibilities for reversal or offer an alternative scenario. All it offers is a meaningless “it’s up to us what happens next”. Where is the information to the contrary you see? Here is an extensive report, from the same source, on the effects of predicted global warming: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-g... Read it carefully, and note that the 1.5C scenario is extremely optimistic and assumes humanity will zero out emissions completely by 2050.