3 ms·

I thought for a moment ht this could be an argument for global trade. as it only reduces the CO2 output it is good but not carbon negative.

by tocs3 1y ago

Joel_Mckay 1y ago
In general, green-washing never truly confesses the scale of the problem. The data driven conclusion is exhausting every mine on every landmass would only buy another 5 to 7 years at most. Geoengineering is currently mostly BS idealism. The planet will be fine again in 30 thousand years or so, after the current population of psychotic primates go extinct. It is ultimately a self-correcting problem regardless of what humans collectively choose to do. =3
- milesrout 1y ago
  [dead]
- rkrisztian 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    It is a solar energy retention problem on a global scale, and has a complex physics model with around 14+ different contributing primary causes. Calling it "global warming" just confused people. CO2 is the lesser of green house gases, but again it is the scale that makes it the primary issue. Please see microbial fossil records, fossil fuel radioactive isotope ratio confirmatory evidence, and thousands of years of ice core trapped-gas sampling data. Best of luck, the world needs more comedians. =3 ( Seriously, why down-vote the guys karma if he honestly thinks his theory is true. Please let people discuss things, as we both may learn something new. )
    - defrost 1y ago
      > Seriously, why down-vote the guys karma if he honestly thinks his theory is true Good point, I'm not in favour of downvoting common errors of AGW denial, rather addressing them instead. That said, I suspect some may recognize the account from past examples of doubling down on Milankovitch cycles: eg: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44289415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44289415 and not engaging. Others may simply be tired from decades of addressing solar variation, orbital variation, rising geological heat, urban heat island bias, et al. for the N^N th time.
      - rkrisztian 1y ago
        It's still what I consider true, and I stated my sources, then you flagged it. The Earth is coming out of an ice age. This time, I properly stated my sources from the start, and you still attack me with your sense of truth. Which may not be the truth. Edit: Mods, please flag this commenter!
        Joel_Mckay 1y ago
        The ice core gas samples go back thousands of years, and cover ice ages. The algae fossils taken from core samples of the earths deep ocean sediment go back even further. There is data that reaches back to a pre-human time where the world was indeed very different, and if you go far enough into the past CO2 levels were extremely high. However, the planets environment also looked very different in that period. The reason people know fossil fuels are primarily responsible is the radioactive isotope mix of carbon versions differ from what should normally be seen on the earths surface. If it was a natural process, than this would not have occurred or matched the industrialization trend data in the ice core and recent direct atmospheric data. The world is full of folks that cherry pick data sources to obscure reality. Yet there are scientists that present verifiable facts, and only PR companies seem to think there is some sort of argument over the implications. =3
        rkrisztian 1y ago
        [dead]
    - rkrisztian 1y ago
      So you call me a comedian after pointing to the comment where I state my facts, and you don't downvote or even flag yourself? This is double standards on Hacker News.
      - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
        Kind of difficult to respond to each point when your opinions are being deleted by folks. =( It takes digging into the problem to determine why there is rare scientific consensus on climate change, and how we are in the worst projected trend toward cascade collapse (where changes accelerate far faster than the world can evolve). Most people do not resort to emotional posturing over facts. I just happen to think that is funny. =3
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  I've seen better villain speeches written on bathroom stalls
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    Good and evil don't really apply to inescapable facts. The earth was fine without humans before we arrived, and will likely continue on after our species is gone. Have a great day =3
- energy123 1y ago
  Geoengineering should probably happen even if we achieved net zero tomorrow. We have already had about 1.4C of warming, which is too much for humans near the equator given how hot it already was. It's either that or migration away from the equator, pick one.
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    In general, renewable carbon free energy sources are the only practical options, and have even proven economically beneficial in many places. There is a cascade failure point that likely will arrive in a few decades based on our current trajectory. Geoengineering, planting trees, and or carbon credit systems does nearly nothing about long-term carbon cycles driving the issue. In general, migration won't happen much as resource constraints can't relocate nor feed 12 Billion people. Maybe something like "The Silo" fiction will become popular, or Elon and his 1600 passenger (based on current designs) company will make it off planet. lol =3

I thought for a moment ht this could be an argument for global trade. as it only reduces the CO2 output it is good but not carbon negative.

by tocs3 1y ago

I thought for a moment ht this could be an argument for global trade. as it only reduces the CO2 output it is good but not carbon negative.

Joel_Mckay 1y ago

In general, green-washing never truly confesses the scale of the problem. The data driven conclusion is exhausting every mine on every landmass would only buy another 5 to 7 years at most. Geoengineering is currently mostly BS idealism. The planet will be fine again in 30 thousand years or so, after the current population of psychotic primates go extinct. It is ultimately a self-correcting problem regardless of what humans collectively choose to do. =3

milesrout 1y ago
[dead]
rkrisztian 1y ago
[flagged]
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  It is a solar energy retention problem on a global scale, and has a complex physics model with around 14+ different contributing primary causes. Calling it "global warming" just confused people. CO2 is the lesser of green house gases, but again it is the scale that makes it the primary issue. Please see microbial fossil records, fossil fuel radioactive isotope ratio confirmatory evidence, and thousands of years of ice core trapped-gas sampling data. Best of luck, the world needs more comedians. =3 ( Seriously, why down-vote the guys karma if he honestly thinks his theory is true. Please let people discuss things, as we both may learn something new. )
  - defrost 1y ago
    > Seriously, why down-vote the guys karma if he honestly thinks his theory is true Good point, I'm not in favour of downvoting common errors of AGW denial, rather addressing them instead. That said, I suspect some may recognize the account from past examples of doubling down on Milankovitch cycles: eg: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44289415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44289415 and not engaging. Others may simply be tired from decades of addressing solar variation, orbital variation, rising geological heat, urban heat island bias, et al. for the N^N th time.
    - rkrisztian 1y ago
      It's still what I consider true, and I stated my sources, then you flagged it. The Earth is coming out of an ice age. This time, I properly stated my sources from the start, and you still attack me with your sense of truth. Which may not be the truth. Edit: Mods, please flag this commenter!
      - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
        The ice core gas samples go back thousands of years, and cover ice ages. The algae fossils taken from core samples of the earths deep ocean sediment go back even further. There is data that reaches back to a pre-human time where the world was indeed very different, and if you go far enough into the past CO2 levels were extremely high. However, the planets environment also looked very different in that period. The reason people know fossil fuels are primarily responsible is the radioactive isotope mix of carbon versions differ from what should normally be seen on the earths surface. If it was a natural process, than this would not have occurred or matched the industrialization trend data in the ice core and recent direct atmospheric data. The world is full of folks that cherry pick data sources to obscure reality. Yet there are scientists that present verifiable facts, and only PR companies seem to think there is some sort of argument over the implications. =3
        rkrisztian 1y ago
        [dead]
  - rkrisztian 1y ago
    So you call me a comedian after pointing to the comment where I state my facts, and you don't downvote or even flag yourself? This is double standards on Hacker News.
    - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
      Kind of difficult to respond to each point when your opinions are being deleted by folks. =( It takes digging into the problem to determine why there is rare scientific consensus on climate change, and how we are in the worst projected trend toward cascade collapse (where changes accelerate far faster than the world can evolve). Most people do not resort to emotional posturing over facts. I just happen to think that is funny. =3
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
I've seen better villain speeches written on bathroom stalls
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  Good and evil don't really apply to inescapable facts. The earth was fine without humans before we arrived, and will likely continue on after our species is gone. Have a great day =3
energy123 1y ago
Geoengineering should probably happen even if we achieved net zero tomorrow. We have already had about 1.4C of warming, which is too much for humans near the equator given how hot it already was. It's either that or migration away from the equator, pick one.
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  In general, renewable carbon free energy sources are the only practical options, and have even proven economically beneficial in many places. There is a cascade failure point that likely will arrive in a few decades based on our current trajectory. Geoengineering, planting trees, and or carbon credit systems does nearly nothing about long-term carbon cycles driving the issue. In general, migration won't happen much as resource constraints can't relocate nor feed 12 Billion people. Maybe something like "The Silo" fiction will become popular, or Elon and his 1600 passenger (based on current designs) company will make it off planet. lol =3