2 ms·

>> current fossil fuel emission rates of CO2 to the atmosphere are as much as 14X the rates during the Permian extinction, although humans have only really been

by toss1 4y ago

>> current fossil fuel emission rates of CO2 to the atmosphere are as much as 14X the rates during the Permian extinction, although humans have only really been at it for 150 years or so, compared to thousands of years during the Permian era. And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields the equivalent of 2100 years of Siberian Traps pollution. Current knowledge is that this activity preceded the Permian extinction for 250K years [0]. That might seem like "Oh, we're only around 1% there". But, critically, the authors of the paper point out: “We don’t know if a little erupted for 250,000 years, and right before the extinction, boom, a vast amount did, or if it was more slow and steady, where the atmosphere reaches a tipping point, and across that point you have mass extinction, but before that you just have critically stressed biospheres,” We are creating serious danger here with this massive uncontrolled experiment on the climate. Once the food web breaks, we're fooked, with no way to recover in time. [0] https://news.mit.edu/2015/siberian-traps-end-permian-extinction-0916 https://news.mit.edu/2015/siberian-traps-end-permian-extinct...

soperj 4y ago
> And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields There's a vast difference between what we were releasing 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago compared to now.
- toss1 4y ago
  Yes, I understand that the rate isn't constant. This is a brief post looking at the scale of the issue, not an exhaustive dissertation. The output is also accelerating, despite efforts to contain it. The only thing that seemed to cause a dip was the beginning of the pandemic. But by all means, please continue to provide an example of the kind of dismissive opposition that is and will be faced by people trying to fix the problem, even when the food web is already collapsing.
  - soperj 4y ago
    Wow snark. > And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields the equivalent of 2100 years of Siberian Traps pollution. From your original comment you display no understanding that the rate isn't constant.
    - toss1 4y ago
      Again: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; brief posts tend to omit many obvious factors. Perhaps instead of lamely defending your original post, you could instead add to the discussion by digging up the actual historical rate of increase and using it to rework the calculation for a more detailed result, and then project the current rate of increase into the future for the next few centuries and see how much of a dent that makes. Come to think of it, why didn't you do that in the first place? But, thanks for again demonstrating Vladmir Lenin's thesis on how effective Useful Idiots can be in derailing progress. Keep right on helping ensure that no one can make a point that disturbs the status quo, and make sure that nothing changes... sheesh
      - soperj 4y ago
        > But, thanks for again demonstrating Vladmir Lenin's thesis on how effective Useful Idiots can be in derailing progress. That's a lot of words for name calling. > Perhaps instead of lamely defending your original post You made a simple error, and yet I'm the one defending? You're projecting. Honestly, it's people like you that put people off doing things climate change related. Self important, with a smart aleck response for everything.
        toss1 4y ago
        Your anti-climate-action attitude needs no encouragement from me; you demoed it just fine by showing up doing the easiest thing in the world — only finding fault — and doing it by adding purposeful obtuseness as if you're trying to implement the CIA Sabotage Handbook [0] Your entire point is dithering about values of 0.005 vs 0.01 and I was noting that we're somewhere around two orders of magnitude within the greatest climate disaster and extinction in the planet's history, but sure, let's waste our time over that 50% error. [0] https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage/ https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...
        soperj 4y ago
        > Your anti-climate-action attitude needs no encouragement from me; I don't have one. You're encouraging other to though. Finding fault is part of Science, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with your world view.

by toss1 4y ago

soperj 4y ago

> And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields There's a vast difference between what we were releasing 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago compared to now.

toss1 4y ago
Yes, I understand that the rate isn't constant. This is a brief post looking at the scale of the issue, not an exhaustive dissertation. The output is also accelerating, despite efforts to contain it. The only thing that seemed to cause a dip was the beginning of the pandemic. But by all means, please continue to provide an example of the kind of dismissive opposition that is and will be faced by people trying to fix the problem, even when the food web is already collapsing.
- soperj 4y ago
  Wow snark. > And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields the equivalent of 2100 years of Siberian Traps pollution. From your original comment you display no understanding that the rate isn't constant.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Again: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; brief posts tend to omit many obvious factors. Perhaps instead of lamely defending your original post, you could instead add to the discussion by digging up the actual historical rate of increase and using it to rework the calculation for a more detailed result, and then project the current rate of increase into the future for the next few centuries and see how much of a dent that makes. Come to think of it, why didn't you do that in the first place? But, thanks for again demonstrating Vladmir Lenin's thesis on how effective Useful Idiots can be in derailing progress. Keep right on helping ensure that no one can make a point that disturbs the status quo, and make sure that nothing changes... sheesh
    - soperj 4y ago
      > But, thanks for again demonstrating Vladmir Lenin's thesis on how effective Useful Idiots can be in derailing progress. That's a lot of words for name calling. > Perhaps instead of lamely defending your original post You made a simple error, and yet I'm the one defending? You're projecting. Honestly, it's people like you that put people off doing things climate change related. Self important, with a smart aleck response for everything.
      - toss1 4y ago
        Your anti-climate-action attitude needs no encouragement from me; you demoed it just fine by showing up doing the easiest thing in the world — only finding fault — and doing it by adding purposeful obtuseness as if you're trying to implement the CIA Sabotage Handbook [0] Your entire point is dithering about values of 0.005 vs 0.01 and I was noting that we're somewhere around two orders of magnitude within the greatest climate disaster and extinction in the planet's history, but sure, let's waste our time over that 50% error. [0] https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage/ https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...
        soperj 4y ago
        > Your anti-climate-action attitude needs no encouragement from me; I don't have one. You're encouraging other to though. Finding fault is part of Science, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with your world view.