3 ms·

And it's all a fools errand, the environment is known to be susceptible to extra planetary events so it's an utterly brain dead fallacy to assume carbon control

by Guthur 3y ago

And it's all a fools errand, the environment is known to be susceptible to extra planetary events so it's an utterly brain dead fallacy to assume carbon control has any effect in the long run.

defrost 3y ago
Tell me more about smoking six packs a day and the doctors that endorse this.
- Guthur 3y ago
  So you deny that anything else other than the composition of the atmosphere can go control the climate?
  - DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
    It is a matter of scale and probability. Do volcanoes add GH gases to the atmosphere? They do. We cannot control it with the technology we have. They also only emit about 0.13 to 0.44 gigatons per year, while human activity releases 35 gigatons per year. What other factors? Solar variation accounts for a much smaller change over the span of the decades long solar cycle. The total solar output hitting the Earth doesn't really change. What does change is how much of that heat is retained. What other extra planetary events are you referring to? Meteorites? The numbers look high, but the total mass (~15000 tons/yr) is miniscule compared to what volcanos produce. Are you talking about any other specific "extra planetary event" that affects the climate?
    - Guthur 3y ago
      Look mate, we can't even stop the economy blowing up every 10 years, and that's just a human construct. If you think that these morons can some how control the climate i really don't know what to say. It boils down to a simple problem with two avenues of action. Problem: climate will change, it always has. Solution A: control the climate. Solution B: adapt. Which to you think is honestly achievable?
      - Alpha3031 3y ago
        Look mate, your car has always been oxidising. What do you think is more achievable, putting out the fire I set or just adapting? What? No, of course you're not allowed to try more than one. Honestly all those non-arson factors that cause oxidation means it's pretty brain dead to assume me setting a fire had anything to do with it. You're probably just going to have to live with all your stuff being on fire, just a hazard of living in a oxygen-having environment.
      - netsharc 3y ago
        Hah, I'm not the one you're replying to, but I pick B: adapt. Soooo easy! At this rate, we're going to kill each other fighting for scarcer resources, and the rest of us the planet's going to finish off. But hey, I'm sure you know better than all the morons.
      - DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
        So are you arguing that it is impossible to reduce our civilization's GHG output, or that reducing it doesn't make a difference? If the latter, well, I don't know what to tell you. I showed you the numbers. Not sure what else I can do. If the former, that is a matter of opinion. Humanity has overcome problems before, and it is my opinion that we will solve this one too. > It boils down to a simple problem with two avenues of action. That is a false dichotomy. Depending on how things play out, it can also be a blend of the two. > Which to you think is honestly achievable? Both? We are already changing things at an accelerating rate and will continue to do so. Fossil fuels are getting increasingly phased out. It won't happen overnight, but it is happening. There is already exponential adoption of solar (and hopefully nuclear in the coming years) way beyond estimates from just a decade ago. Yes, humanity will adapt. But it also gets a lot easier to adapt if we reduce how much we are making it worse.
  - defrost 3y ago
    No. What part of your anatomy did you pull that silly strawman from? But I do assert the the current change in global climate parameters as observed over the past 50 years are overwhelmingly due in toto to human activity driven changes to the atmosphere. I catagorically reject that extra planetary changes account for more than a tiny percentage of those changes. I catagorically reject that changes in heat from the core has had any significant effect during that time period.

by Guthur 3y ago

And it's all a fools errand, the environment is known to be susceptible to extra planetary events so it's an utterly brain dead fallacy to assume carbon control has any effect in the long run.

defrost 3y ago

Tell me more about smoking six packs a day and the doctors that endorse this.

Guthur 3y ago
So you deny that anything else other than the composition of the atmosphere can go control the climate?
- DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
  It is a matter of scale and probability. Do volcanoes add GH gases to the atmosphere? They do. We cannot control it with the technology we have. They also only emit about 0.13 to 0.44 gigatons per year, while human activity releases 35 gigatons per year. What other factors? Solar variation accounts for a much smaller change over the span of the decades long solar cycle. The total solar output hitting the Earth doesn't really change. What does change is how much of that heat is retained. What other extra planetary events are you referring to? Meteorites? The numbers look high, but the total mass (~15000 tons/yr) is miniscule compared to what volcanos produce. Are you talking about any other specific "extra planetary event" that affects the climate?
  - Guthur 3y ago
    Look mate, we can't even stop the economy blowing up every 10 years, and that's just a human construct. If you think that these morons can some how control the climate i really don't know what to say. It boils down to a simple problem with two avenues of action. Problem: climate will change, it always has. Solution A: control the climate. Solution B: adapt. Which to you think is honestly achievable?
    - Alpha3031 3y ago
      Look mate, your car has always been oxidising. What do you think is more achievable, putting out the fire I set or just adapting? What? No, of course you're not allowed to try more than one. Honestly all those non-arson factors that cause oxidation means it's pretty brain dead to assume me setting a fire had anything to do with it. You're probably just going to have to live with all your stuff being on fire, just a hazard of living in a oxygen-having environment.
    - netsharc 3y ago
      Hah, I'm not the one you're replying to, but I pick B: adapt. Soooo easy! At this rate, we're going to kill each other fighting for scarcer resources, and the rest of us the planet's going to finish off. But hey, I'm sure you know better than all the morons.
    - DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
      So are you arguing that it is impossible to reduce our civilization's GHG output, or that reducing it doesn't make a difference? If the latter, well, I don't know what to tell you. I showed you the numbers. Not sure what else I can do. If the former, that is a matter of opinion. Humanity has overcome problems before, and it is my opinion that we will solve this one too. > It boils down to a simple problem with two avenues of action. That is a false dichotomy. Depending on how things play out, it can also be a blend of the two. > Which to you think is honestly achievable? Both? We are already changing things at an accelerating rate and will continue to do so. Fossil fuels are getting increasingly phased out. It won't happen overnight, but it is happening. There is already exponential adoption of solar (and hopefully nuclear in the coming years) way beyond estimates from just a decade ago. Yes, humanity will adapt. But it also gets a lot easier to adapt if we reduce how much we are making it worse.
- defrost 3y ago
  No. What part of your anatomy did you pull that silly strawman from? But I do assert the the current change in global climate parameters as observed over the past 50 years are overwhelmingly due in toto to human activity driven changes to the atmosphere. I catagorically reject that extra planetary changes account for more than a tiny percentage of those changes. I catagorically reject that changes in heat from the core has had any significant effect during that time period.