3 ms·

> 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.

by soperj 4y ago

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.
        toss1 4y ago
        >>Finding fault is part of Science Finding RELEVANT Fault is part of Science Of course the rate has changed, but that level of precision is irrelevant to this question. If it was a steady change to this level, then it is off by 50% (straight-line-average), which is irrelevant; if it is a hockey-stick curve that only makes the point stronger, i.e., humans are super-rapidly producing that scale of greenhouse gasses. The entire point is a very rough estimate that humans are outputting greenhouse gasses APPROACHING THE SCALE OF the greatest climate disaster in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. Despite the ordinary expectation that the Siberian Traps' gigantic volcanic activity for more than a quarter-million years dwarfs anything humans could ever do in a few centuries, the fact is that the scale of our output is now in the same playing field as that disaster. I'm pointing out that we do not have a gnat in the room, we have an elephant. Yet you want to argue that I didn't specify Asian vs African elephant. I'm not trying to weigh the elephant to the gram, I'm pointing out that we need to do something before it tears down the house. Your comments about the minutiae, whether or not they might be technically correct, are not science; they are a distraction. Have a good evening. I'm done here.

> 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.

by 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.
        toss1 4y ago
        >>Finding fault is part of Science Finding RELEVANT Fault is part of Science Of course the rate has changed, but that level of precision is irrelevant to this question. If it was a steady change to this level, then it is off by 50% (straight-line-average), which is irrelevant; if it is a hockey-stick curve that only makes the point stronger, i.e., humans are super-rapidly producing that scale of greenhouse gasses. The entire point is a very rough estimate that humans are outputting greenhouse gasses APPROACHING THE SCALE OF the greatest climate disaster in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. Despite the ordinary expectation that the Siberian Traps' gigantic volcanic activity for more than a quarter-million years dwarfs anything humans could ever do in a few centuries, the fact is that the scale of our output is now in the same playing field as that disaster. I'm pointing out that we do not have a gnat in the room, we have an elephant. Yet you want to argue that I didn't specify Asian vs African elephant. I'm not trying to weigh the elephant to the gram, I'm pointing out that we need to do something before it tears down the house. Your comments about the minutiae, whether or not they might be technically correct, are not science; they are a distraction. Have a good evening. I'm done here.