6 ms·
It's a good thing there's a near 0% chance of it actually happening.
by nemo44x 1y ago
It's a good thing there's a near 0% chance of it actually happening.
- pklausler 1y agoHow do you know that?
- nemo44x 1y agoAll this nonsense is the same as the guys who have predicted 80 of the last 2 recessions. But hey, if you can exaggerate the output your model suggests that was built from faulty assumptions, incomplete data, hubris, and spans decades in time and get people to buy it and continue to fund your project, good for you.
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoYou can put your head in the sand, but it will not save you. You must take the world on from first principles, and dive deep into the details if you want truth. Simply countering that nobody can predict what will happen is not an argument, it's a plea to stay ignorant.
- nemo44x 1y agoOpen your mind until your brain falls out. How many bromides should we exchange? Saying “there’s no proof” is better than believing everything that comes your way with 0 critical analysis. But it’s nice to feel smart.
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoJesus, what does that even mean? Simple physics says carbon dioxide traps heat. Chemistry 10th grade. Did you take it? This is not hard. Only an absolute ignoramus would pretend it's not happening at this point.
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoNo worried, HN has plenty of cranks who don't have real arguments or references to actual studies. I suppose it's just comforting to pretend it's business as usual.
- nemo44x 1y agoOr we understand geometry and how the volume of carbon has to geometrically increase by a square per degree and it’s not even possible for us to put that much in the atmosphere.
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoYeah feel free to link to a study or summary.
- nemo44x 1y agoIt’s logarithmic. Just google it or ask any LLM to explain this basic fact to you.
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoShow your work, please. At this point the burden of proof is on you to disprove it, not the other way around. It hasn't snowed here in years.
- nemo44x 1y agoThe fact you don’t even understand this basic fact and yet are so certain should concern you. 1. Logarithmic effect of CO₂ • The warming effect of carbon dioxide grows logarithmically with concentration, not linearly. • This means the first 100 ppm of CO₂ caused a much larger temperature impact than, say, an increase from 400 → 500 ppm. • Each additional molecule of CO₂ contributes less extra warming because much of the infrared spectrum it absorbs is already saturated. 2. Geometry of “forcing” • Scientists describe this as radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. • Roughly, each doubling of CO₂ concentration produces about +3.7 W/m² of forcing, which translates (with climate sensitivity) to ~1.5–4.5°C warming. • So it takes geometrically more CO₂ to achieve each additional degree of warming. For example: • Going from 280 → 400 ppm may give ~1°C warming. • Going from 400 → 560 ppm (another 160 ppm) gives another ~1°C. • Going from 560 → 840 ppm (280 ppm more) gives another ~1°C. • And so on — the increments needed get larger each time.
- pklausler 1y agoHow do you know that climate scientists are as unreliable as some economists?
- nemo44x 1y agoThey’re probably more unreliable as climate is far more complex than economics and predicting 50 years out with any certainty is a ridiculous notion for both.
- AlecSchueler 1y agoYou don't explain why you believe that though?
- nemo44x 1y agoBecause it’s very probably wrong.
- conception 1y agohttps://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli... Most of the high profile climate models have been wrong… but in underestimating the speed of global warming. So things generally are worse than research suggests. I think you underestimate how well the models are doing.
- nemo44x 1y agoSo their models are so bad that they’re good. Lol great.