3 ms·

Yes, accuracy matters in this discussion. Not conflating numbers which have no relation to each other matters. We haven't "surpassed the 1.5C target" just becau

by mort96 3mo ago

Yes, accuracy matters in this discussion. Not conflating numbers which have no relation to each other matters. We haven't "surpassed the 1.5C target" just because one year is abnormally hot. When we finally do officially surpass it, we don't want a lot of people to be confused and ask, "wait didn't we already surpass it in 2026?".

spwa4 3mo ago
Neither side cares about accuracy, and both will prevent you from getting your message out. The discussion has 2 sides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxQZ8ub54Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxQZ8ub54Y These are the conversations that get translated into policy. They are literally about directly satisfying people's emotions. No detours. Accuracy? I hope you're joking. AND there's the problem that the policy the "pro-global-warming" camp wants will not even help. Global CO2 emission reduction is not realistic. I'm working in AI and hoping that will help. If I had the realistic option (I have a family to support), I'd love to work in Chemistry to make it at least possible, maybe even easy, to do something about that (of course, even Chemistry products are being designed with AI, so ...). Achieving anything in policy seems to me beyond absurd. In fact I find it very hard to defend the viewpoint that even the policymakers pushing global warming action even want to help. Technological solutions at least might achieve something.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Chemistry to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? The problem is that it costs as much energy as you received by putting it there. You have to unburn the fuel. Did you know each molecule of chlorophyll only processes three molecules of CO2 per second? The limiting factor is energy input.
  - spwa4 3mo ago
    Chemistry (and Physics) to have abundant energy generation without CO2 release. There is no shortage of energy, not by many orders of magnitude, there is a shortage of viable energy conversions.
- mort96 3mo ago
  I care about accuracy, so I'm gonna call out inaccuracy when I see it.

by mort96 3mo ago

spwa4 3mo ago

Neither side cares about accuracy, and both will prevent you from getting your message out. The discussion has 2 sides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxQZ8ub54Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxQZ8ub54Y These are the conversations that get translated into policy. They are literally about directly satisfying people's emotions. No detours. Accuracy? I hope you're joking. AND there's the problem that the policy the "pro-global-warming" camp wants will not even help. Global CO2 emission reduction is not realistic. I'm working in AI and hoping that will help. If I had the realistic option (I have a family to support), I'd love to work in Chemistry to make it at least possible, maybe even easy, to do something about that (of course, even Chemistry products are being designed with AI, so ...). Achieving anything in policy seems to me beyond absurd. In fact I find it very hard to defend the viewpoint that even the policymakers pushing global warming action even want to help. Technological solutions at least might achieve something.

inigyou 3mo ago
Chemistry to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? The problem is that it costs as much energy as you received by putting it there. You have to unburn the fuel. Did you know each molecule of chlorophyll only processes three molecules of CO2 per second? The limiting factor is energy input.
- spwa4 3mo ago
  Chemistry (and Physics) to have abundant energy generation without CO2 release. There is no shortage of energy, not by many orders of magnitude, there is a shortage of viable energy conversions.
mort96 3mo ago
I care about accuracy, so I'm gonna call out inaccuracy when I see it.