3 ms·

This is some really bizarre logic: "It's not the guy with then gun, it's the bullets, let's avoid them!" I think the secondary things you describe are almost l

by jasmer 3y ago

This is some really bizarre logic: "It's not the guy with then gun, it's the bullets, let's avoid them!" I think the secondary things you describe are almost large scale weather events, not quite climate. But most fundamentally, the 'primary driver' of temperature change is CO2 and that's that so of course we have to measure it. And yes, it's far more fuzzy than they let on, which is not good they should be more open about that, or find a way to communicate it more effectively. No, the planet is not all 'fucked' and CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air, and of course, if we want to start to decarbonize the atmosphere we can do that as well. I wish they would use the term 'climate risk' - because risk all about less likely probabilities, than 'specific paths to the future'.

Yizahi 3y ago
> CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. I'm not against measuring emission rates, that's an important metric. I'm against making any far reaching assumptions based ONLY on the emission rates estimates. Because that's like cooking meat inside an opaque black box by measuring torque forces applied to the regulator over time. It loosely corresponds to the result, but the meat would be charred most likely, due to big amount of conversions and estimations. On the other hand measuring meat temperature with a thermometer inserted directly into it would give us a precision result.
- darkwater 3y ago
  > What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. Considering that nature provides carbon traps and that the Earth is ultimately in the void of the space, you cooking meat is a kitchen with opened windows and freezing weather outside, and you turn down the climate that was set to full throttle.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  I believe they are claiming that various processes break down or passively absorb CO2 in the air, so if emissions stopped by some magic, CO2 levels would not be steady but decreasing, even without other interventions.
  - Yizahi 3y ago
    I have no proper knowledge about natural carbon sinks, their capacity and remaining capabilities. But from the amateur point of view I think there are 3 main possibilities - vegetation, ocean and permafrost. Permafrost won't help because first the planet need to cool down a lot and start general cooling trend. And we will be heating up the atmosphere due to existing gasses. So it's a dead end. Vegetation is a linear carbon sink. Because microbes decompose dead vegetation and release gasses back in the atmosphere, the most of the captured carbon in vegetation must be in the actual alive plants. And number of alive plants scales linearly with the area we humans leave for them. Since humanity is increasing in numbers and each human demands more and more land to be used, I highly doubt that we can spare a lot of arable land for a NEW vegetation. So that's also dead end. And at last oceans. I have no idea what is the capture mechanism of an ocean and how much carbon on it's own it can capture permanently. Maybe yes, maybe no. But considering that a) we are acidifying oceans, b) overfishing them, c) raise sea levels, d) heat up oceans - all this together would probably hamper natural carbon capture capabilities of an ocean. So maybe this is possible. But I haven't heard a lot about such possibility from scientists, and I doubt it's a solution for our problem. Until some research will be done at least.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      Here are some numbers from the Guardian, mostly citing IPCC reports as far as I can tell: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou... Overall the OP's assertion seems to be only technically ture - it seems that CO2 is indeed absorbed, but only on a scale of decades to centuries essentially.
- jasmer 3y ago
  "Because that's what you are saying, literally." You're having trouble with the meaning of word 'literally', but also analogies, and climate. The earth has various mechanisms for absorbing CO2 over time.
  - rsync 3y ago
    “I’m literally never going to stop misusing this word”

by jasmer 3y ago

Yizahi 3y ago

> CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. I'm not against measuring emission rates, that's an important metric. I'm against making any far reaching assumptions based ONLY on the emission rates estimates. Because that's like cooking meat inside an opaque black box by measuring torque forces applied to the regulator over time. It loosely corresponds to the result, but the meat would be charred most likely, due to big amount of conversions and estimations. On the other hand measuring meat temperature with a thermometer inserted directly into it would give us a precision result.

darkwater 3y ago
> What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. Considering that nature provides carbon traps and that the Earth is ultimately in the void of the space, you cooking meat is a kitchen with opened windows and freezing weather outside, and you turn down the climate that was set to full throttle.
tsimionescu 3y ago
I believe they are claiming that various processes break down or passively absorb CO2 in the air, so if emissions stopped by some magic, CO2 levels would not be steady but decreasing, even without other interventions.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  I have no proper knowledge about natural carbon sinks, their capacity and remaining capabilities. But from the amateur point of view I think there are 3 main possibilities - vegetation, ocean and permafrost. Permafrost won't help because first the planet need to cool down a lot and start general cooling trend. And we will be heating up the atmosphere due to existing gasses. So it's a dead end. Vegetation is a linear carbon sink. Because microbes decompose dead vegetation and release gasses back in the atmosphere, the most of the captured carbon in vegetation must be in the actual alive plants. And number of alive plants scales linearly with the area we humans leave for them. Since humanity is increasing in numbers and each human demands more and more land to be used, I highly doubt that we can spare a lot of arable land for a NEW vegetation. So that's also dead end. And at last oceans. I have no idea what is the capture mechanism of an ocean and how much carbon on it's own it can capture permanently. Maybe yes, maybe no. But considering that a) we are acidifying oceans, b) overfishing them, c) raise sea levels, d) heat up oceans - all this together would probably hamper natural carbon capture capabilities of an ocean. So maybe this is possible. But I haven't heard a lot about such possibility from scientists, and I doubt it's a solution for our problem. Until some research will be done at least.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Here are some numbers from the Guardian, mostly citing IPCC reports as far as I can tell: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou... Overall the OP's assertion seems to be only technically ture - it seems that CO2 is indeed absorbed, but only on a scale of decades to centuries essentially.
jasmer 3y ago
"Because that's what you are saying, literally." You're having trouble with the meaning of word 'literally', but also analogies, and climate. The earth has various mechanisms for absorbing CO2 over time.
- rsync 3y ago
  “I’m literally never going to stop misusing this word”