43 ms·

Yes us evil Eukaryotes are responsible for the demise of this planet. Why don't we all do the honourable thing and kill ourselves rather than solving the climat

by meaty 14y ago

Yes us evil Eukaryotes are responsible for the demise of this planet. Why don't we all do the honourable thing and kill ourselves rather than solving the climate problems with taxation and working out how to trade carbon and leverage trade sanctions to gain more tangible but useless bits of metal and plastic... I mean those sulphur breathing bacteria which we oxygenated out of existence are utterly pissed at us now. For those who don't get my comment: we don't know how the planet works. Don't know what our impact is. Oh and the climate changes anyway without our intervention which may cause our demise or not - just go with the flow.

Gravityloss 14y ago
I'm not exactly sure if I understood your comment. But we know quite a lot about how the planet works and what our impact is. We don't know everything, but we know a lot more than nothing. It's like sending a blind person over a busy road. If you do it when the pedestrian light is red, you might not know which car might hit her at what velocity, but you know that the outcome is quite likely much much worse than if you wait for the green light.
- meaty 14y ago
  Actually no we don't. The physical models are scrapped yearly, our predictions are incredibly inaccurate and we can't shake a stick at the to tiny amount of broken data we hold and extrapolate it. Every corporation and politician clamps onto hypothesis' if there is gain to be made, yet theories that result are impossible to challenge. That'snot science. Thatis religion. It's more like we're arrogant blind fundamentalist religious zealots with not much data playing whack-a-mole in the dark and simultaneously fucking everyone in the process.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    The fact that models are constantly refined doesn't mean they're "scrapped." The core model, of CO2 being a greenhouse gas that drives feedbacks--particularly water vapor feedbacks, but others as well--is very well attested to. It's true that climate is complicated and there are significant uncertainties in how they might interact. Most of those uncertainties, however, lie in the positive direction. That's part of the reason why the expected mean warming is much closer to the lower bound than the upper one.
  - Gravityloss 14y ago
    That's not correct. Just to name a few examples, we have quite good data of CO2 concentrations and CO2 infrared behaviour. But what's also strange in your argument, you say that if we know less about the effects, then we should freely change the climate system more. Here's a free online book by Spencer Weart of the history of climate science for anyone who is interested: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm And a blog by Steve Easterbrook about the current state of software in the more complex models: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 Probably many software-oriented people here might find the latter blog interesting: "We found that the climate models all have very low defect densities compared to well-known, similarly sized open-source projects."

by meaty 14y ago

Gravityloss 14y ago

I'm not exactly sure if I understood your comment. But we know quite a lot about how the planet works and what our impact is. We don't know everything, but we know a lot more than nothing. It's like sending a blind person over a busy road. If you do it when the pedestrian light is red, you might not know which car might hit her at what velocity, but you know that the outcome is quite likely much much worse than if you wait for the green light.

meaty 14y ago
Actually no we don't. The physical models are scrapped yearly, our predictions are incredibly inaccurate and we can't shake a stick at the to tiny amount of broken data we hold and extrapolate it. Every corporation and politician clamps onto hypothesis' if there is gain to be made, yet theories that result are impossible to challenge. That'snot science. Thatis religion. It's more like we're arrogant blind fundamentalist religious zealots with not much data playing whack-a-mole in the dark and simultaneously fucking everyone in the process.
- scarmig 14y ago
  The fact that models are constantly refined doesn't mean they're "scrapped." The core model, of CO2 being a greenhouse gas that drives feedbacks--particularly water vapor feedbacks, but others as well--is very well attested to. It's true that climate is complicated and there are significant uncertainties in how they might interact. Most of those uncertainties, however, lie in the positive direction. That's part of the reason why the expected mean warming is much closer to the lower bound than the upper one.
- Gravityloss 14y ago
  That's not correct. Just to name a few examples, we have quite good data of CO2 concentrations and CO2 infrared behaviour. But what's also strange in your argument, you say that if we know less about the effects, then we should freely change the climate system more. Here's a free online book by Spencer Weart of the history of climate science for anyone who is interested: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm And a blog by Steve Easterbrook about the current state of software in the more complex models: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 Probably many software-oriented people here might find the latter blog interesting: "We found that the climate models all have very low defect densities compared to well-known, similarly sized open-source projects."