3 ms·

The simple part is that we need to stop gathering geologically sequestered hydrocarbons and putting them in the atmosphere. I have made an effort to understand

by AlanSE 5y ago

The simple part is that we need to stop gathering geologically sequestered hydrocarbons and putting them in the atmosphere. I have made an effort to understand climate science. Personally, I think the deference to simulations and experts has been hugely detrimental. The important questions seem to not need either PhDs or simulations. Very rudimentary education for anyone who has a science background suffices. Know the sun's rough temperature and the Earth's rough temperature, plus black-body ration, and you know the mechanism of heating. Know a weather-channel level of humidity temperature dependence, and you can know the water vapor feedback. So yes, cows, concrete, and steel are going to be problems if we solve fossil fuels. But this seems intentionally misleading. Oil comes from a mile underground and we put it in the atmosphere. We've got to stop doing that fast, before we're locked into future effects, like crop productivity declines.

godelski 5y ago
I think to understand how to solve the problem has become harder over the years. It used to actually only be "stop emitting". That was the issue in the 80's and when we first saw scientists discussing with congress. But now not only has the problem become more difficult (as we've let the problem snowball), but others have been creating new agendas. To be clear, this confusion and misunderstanding is on a continuous scale, not binary (misinformation in the green movements is better than the misinformation in the anti-climate movements). The problem is that if you aren't in the academic spaces it is often difficult to find the actions we need to take because there's this game of telephone going on (I do think it is "the media"'s job to distill this information by talking directly to experts, but they've been failing). What's worrying here is that we often note how climate is "the most complicated crisis that humanity has ever faced" but almost everyone acts like they have an expert opinion on it (I _do not_ but I have worked close to the space and am mostly appealing to authority here). So I want to give an example of a common myth on the pro-climate side that actually takes us a step backwards but most people think it is an obvious path forward: reforestation. This is confusing because we all learn in school that trees "breathe" CO2 and exhale O2. But in reality young forests are actually carbon sources and old forests are carbon sinks[0]. This is about 20 years and so we have a lag. But that's only the beginning of the problem[1], and things get really complicated really fast because we need to consider the whole ecosystem involved, which is why land management is so important as well. In this example, taking the "obvious" and simple answer actually is harmful to the goal even though it is "more correct" than the other answers. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1306221445933129728 https://mobile.twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1306221445...

by AlanSE 5y ago

godelski 5y ago

I think to understand how to solve the problem has become harder over the years. It used to actually only be "stop emitting". That was the issue in the 80's and when we first saw scientists discussing with congress. But now not only has the problem become more difficult (as we've let the problem snowball), but others have been creating new agendas. To be clear, this confusion and misunderstanding is on a continuous scale, not binary (misinformation in the green movements is better than the misinformation in the anti-climate movements). The problem is that if you aren't in the academic spaces it is often difficult to find the actions we need to take because there's this game of telephone going on (I do think it is "the media"'s job to distill this information by talking directly to experts, but they've been failing). What's worrying here is that we often note how climate is "the most complicated crisis that humanity has ever faced" but almost everyone acts like they have an expert opinion on it (I _do not_ but I have worked close to the space and am mostly appealing to authority here). So I want to give an example of a common myth on the pro-climate side that actually takes us a step backwards but most people think it is an obvious path forward: reforestation. This is confusing because we all learn in school that trees "breathe" CO2 and exhale O2. But in reality young forests are actually carbon sources and old forests are carbon sinks[0]. This is about 20 years and so we have a lag. But that's only the beginning of the problem[1], and things get really complicated really fast because we need to consider the whole ecosystem involved, which is why land management is so important as well. In this example, taking the "obvious" and simple answer actually is harmful to the goal even though it is "more correct" than the other answers. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1306221445933129728 https://mobile.twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1306221445...