NewForumSoftware posted:Stopping emissions won't do anything. There's a 10 year lag on maximum heating from CO2 emissions. The ship has already sailed on this one unfortunately. Once we hit 4C all bets are off, industrialized civilization as we know won't survive and all the treaties in the world won't "reduce harm". The feedback loops have already started, nature has taken over. Yea i know you cut off the bit where i said we need to find a way to cut emissions a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
It is weird to see this "inaction alliance" between climate deniers and pessimists who disagree on if climate is real but both agree that if it is we should "enjoy the ride" and not try and change anything. I guess anything to justify one's lifestyle in the face of reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:43
|
|
Reminder that this is where the politics stands. quote:According to the IPCC, global warming of more than 2°C would have serious consequences, such as an increase in the number of extreme climate events. In Copenhagen in 2009, the countries stated their determination to limit global warming to 2°C between now and 2100. To reach this target, climate experts estimate that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be reduced by 40-70% by 2050 and that carbon neutrality (zero emissions) needs to be reached by the end of the century at the latest. Which is a nice way of saying we have failed.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:Reminder that this is where the politics stands. So you're saying it is impossible to meet those goals and if we can't meet those goals then it isn't worth trying?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is weird to see this "inaction alliance" between climate deniers and pessimists who disagree on if climate is real but both agree that if it is we should "enjoy the ride" and not try and change anything. Just because you're incapable of understanding that there is nothing we can do at this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM0uZ9mfOUI
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Just because you're incapable of understanding that there is nothing we can do at this point. I understand your argument, I just vehemently disagree. It might be too late to act prevent a lot of harm, but there is still harm that is preventable. Sure you'll respond with "we didn't in the past so we can't in the future" or "regulation of emissions is impossible, people will cheat" but that doesn't change the fact we have to keep trying. Someone saying "enjoy the ride" is as morally reprehensible as a denialist if not worse. Because they are putting their own psychological comfort over the realities of vast harm we can still mitigate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Femur posted:If someone can help me understand, it seems rich countries browbeating and enticing leaders of poor countries to give up resources(their citizens in this case) is the norm isn't it? and one of the largest factor causing climate change? Rich countries could start committing serious resources to carbon capture. They won't, but they could and should. shrike82 posted:Except "not having kids" is the solution on an individual level and that's a non starter You still haven't pointed out how this solves the problem. (Because it doesn't, lol) Nocturtle posted:It's not correct to say climate change is unsolvable by the current international political framework. Uh... that is completely correct to say, since the current international political framework has failed to even stop making things worse, which is several steps removed from solving the problem, and now it is too late for it to do so, and the odds aren't even looking good for the current international political framework having much more success moving forward than they'd had already. I mean you pretty much make the argument yourself: quote:the UNFCCC/Kyoto protocols was an acid test of our collective political leadership. The scientific consensus had developed by the early 90s, and at that point serious action could conceivably have kept global warming below 2C. Obviously this didn't happen. We have to make the best of our present situation, but unfortunately we still have largely the same leadership and institutions that failed to take action when needed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I understand your argument, I just vehemently disagree. I disagree. If there's nothing you can do about something, the best thing you can do is to accept that lack of control and move on. This is a good rule in general, but especially when it comes to Climate Change. Go do what you love, go travel the world, learn about whatever you want. Don't waste your time trying to save the planet from climate change or save humans from extinction, it's way too big of a problem for one person to solve (and they can't anyways) and the chance for collective action to save us is already gone. There's no shame in being realistic about the science. Realism has always been "morally reprehensible" to the permanently optimistic among us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It might be too late to act prevent a lot of harm, but there is still harm that is preventable. I'm willing to believe this, but I would certainly like to see your description of what would need to be done to prevent harm and how that's going to happen, because I haven't even seen an effective mitigation strategy at this point from anyone in this thread, only pointless delays that insure when things do get as bad as we know they will, there will be more people around for it to negatively impact. NewForumSoftware posted:I disagree. If there's nothing you can do about something, the best thing you can do is to accept that lack of control and move on. There is, though. I mean, we probably won't, but there is plenty we can do. Instead, we'll get a bunch of people fretting about how action is too much of a gamble so she wouldn't bother, but there's still stuff we can do. Not, like, personally, but jointly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is weird to see this "inaction alliance" between climate deniers and pessimists who disagree on if climate is real but both agree that if it is we should "enjoy the ride" and not try and change anything. It's the natural evolution of a denialist. It isn't happening -> Maybe it is happening but it's totally a natural process -> Well maybe humans did do some stuff but can't change it now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:There is, though. I mean, we probably won't, but there is plenty we can do. Instead, we'll get a bunch of people fretting about how action is too much of a gamble so she wouldn't bother, but there's still stuff we can do. Not, like, personally, but jointly. I disagree 100%. I'd like for you to find one scientific paper or piece of literature that supports the idea that there's an action (or even magically coordinated global effort) that can keep us from going above 2 celsius at this point. Even better, try 3 or 4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:59
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is weird to see this "inaction alliance" between climate deniers and pessimists who disagree on if climate is real but both agree that if it is we should "enjoy the ride" and not try and change anything. I'm all for action, but the action necessary (stop ghg) will not be taken and will not be taken in time (yesterday), change your lifestyle all you wish but you are just as guilty of deluding reality. A pessimist who thinks we haven't taken the drastic steps needed and continue to fail is a member of the inaction alliance and just like those deniers? i'm not sure what you are debating.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:I'm all for action, but the action necessary (stop ghg) will not be taken and will not be taken in time (yesterday), change your lifestyle all you wish but you are just as guilty of deluding reality. He's saying that anyone who doesn't share his (wrong and stupid) opinion is a bad person. If we are bad people for our views, it makes him easy to ignore them as a valid alternative because he's not a bad person. Ignorance is bliss. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Does anyone have any information on the current worse-case cost-per-ton for carbon sequestration tech? Just so I can get a better sense of how unreasonable it is, since almost everyone seems to feel it's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Does anyone have any information on the current worse-case cost-per-ton for carbon sequestration tech? Just so I can get a better sense of how unreasonable it is, since almost everyone seems to feel it's impossible. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full posted a few pages back TLDR: The technology doesn't exist, we keep pretending like it does, all the plans that include Carbon Sequestration are bullshit. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calls for a "manhattan project" to solve the problem of the government not being able to listen to encrypted communications. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full posted a few pages back We've already gone over that article, it's what started this whole discussion, it does not provide or even hint at the information I requested, but what it does do is the exact opposite of what you claim (it lists several examples of the technology already existing). edit: I have found some numbers in one of the cited sources though, so that's a start, and there's actually followups so I may have something at some point. NewForumSoftware posted:all the plans that include Carbon Sequestration are bullshit. Because there is no actual intent or plan for doing carbon sequestration. Any plan that doesn't include carbon sequestration is equally bullshit. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:We've already gone over that article, it's what started this whole discussion, it does not provide or even hint at the information I requested, but what it does do is the exact opposite of what you claim (it lists several examples of the technology already existing). Did you actually read the article? It cites this paper: http://www.nature.com/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318 as it's basis for the section on Carbon Capture technology, quote:Because there is no actual intent or plan for doing carbon sequestration. Any plan that doesn't include carbon sequestration is equally bullshit. Again, did you read the article? quote:Using the 76 scenarios consistent with a likely chance of not exceeding 2°C (see the figure), two key features are immediately striking. First, the scenarios assume that the large-scale rollout of negative-emission technologies is technically, economically, and socially viable (2, 4). In many scenarios, the level of negative emissions is comparable in size with the remaining carbon budget (see the figure) and is sufficient to bring global emissions to at least net zero in the second half of the century. Second, there is a large and growing deviation between actual emission trends and emission scenarios. The sum of the national emission pledges submitted to the Paris negotiations (COP21) lead to an increase in emissions, at least until 2030.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Yes, I did. Did you? An assumption that sequestration will happen is not an intent or plan for doing meaningful sequestration. And none of the nations involved seem to be taking it at all seriously, and there is no actual plan for sequestration, just an assumption it will happen at some point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Coining a new phrase: "Anthropogenic Climate Nihilism": the evasion of personal responsibility through the trivialization of both a) the likelihood of human survival and b) the value of literally all non-human life on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Nooo don't leave me with them... At least the suicidally depressed guy seems to have left or at least stopped posting his fantasies about self-euthanization clinics I am feeling much better, thank you. Though my point still stands. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You still haven't pointed out how [having fewer kids] solves the problem. (Because it doesn't, lol) It was wrong for shrike82 to claim that having fewer kids "solves" the problem, but, as I illustrated a few pages ago, having more children makes most problems worse in the medium and long terms, and worse for more people. NewForumSoftware posted:Go do what you love, go travel the world, learn about whatever you want. Don't waste your time trying to save the planet from climate change or save humans from extinction, it's way too big of a problem for one person to solve (and they can't anyways) and the chance for collective action to save us is already gone. No, don't produce unnecessary environmental degradation. Just because your indivudual action will not "save the planet from climate change or save humans from extinction" does not mean that it is ethical to ignore the negative consequences that your decadent actions will generate. So many people, including so many in this thread, who ought to know better, have a blinkered view of personal responsibility. You as an individual are a randomly sampled representative of all people; your decision to fly around the world or to eat less meat is one that will also be made by millions of other people; if people in general become more selfish or ignorant (perhaps because they listen to people like you) then people will tend to take the first decision rather than the second, and everyone loses. When you make and promote decisions that acknowledge personal responsibility, the damage that humans collectively do to the world and other people is reduced. As I think most of us agree, policy action is required beyond the reduction of collective personal emissions, but the thoughtful actions of the general populace can and must make up a large fraction of the way that we have to go to achieve a non-catastrophic climate/biosphere/resource situation in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
I'm glad to hear you are feeling better  . You mind if I ask what ended up helping?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Okay, best I can tell from the sources it seems like carbon sequestration can reasonable be expected to reach the $100/ton level if it's prioritized. That's admittedly super pricey. That's roughly $4 trillion dollars per year that would need to be spent to negate current emissions level. That's insanely expensive, agreed. But any amount of mitigation slows down how fast things get worse. Pursuing this now, immediately, the countries currently leading emissions reduction plans could (if they were so interested) manage about a quarter of that. We would still need a 75% reduction in emissions, first world countries should still be expecting to spend considerable resources dealing with the spillover, but a 75% reduction in emissions is a lot more reasonable than a 100% reduction, and it wouldn't put the burden and costs solely on third world countries. We aren't going to spend more than a pittance though, so yeah, you guys have convinced me, success is impossible lol. (not really though, but I would like someone to actually show me any sort of realistic plan where things don't get worse forever) Placid Marmot posted:It was wrong for shrike82 to claim that having fewer kids "solves" the problem, but, as I illustrated a few pages ago, having more children makes most problems worse in the medium and long terms, and worse for more people. Please, illustrate again, I must have missed it. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:No, don't produce unnecessary environmental degradation. Just because your indivudual action will not "save the planet from climate change or save humans from extinction" does not mean that it is ethical to ignore the negative consequences that your decadent actions will generate. Well yes, but that's a good idea regardless of whether Climate Change is a thing or not. Most of my statements are directed at people who I would assume actually do care about this poo poo, have already taken the steps to minimize their carbon footprint, etc. I moved to a community that's much more ecologically focused, gave away my car, stopped using air travel, etc. But I mean, there's nothing appreciable for people like me to do other than watch the world burn at this point and try not to let it consume you. The only thing left I could do is agree to not have children and that's just not a sacrifice I'm willing to make. If that's the "unnecessary environmental degradation" we're talking about we're already so hosed that talking about individual action is a comedy. GlyphGryph posted:We aren't going to spend more than a pittance though, so yeah, you guys have convinced me, success is impossible lol. (not really though, but I would like someone to actually show me any sort of realistic plan where things don't get worse forever) If you want it to get more depressing, realize that it's not an economic problem, but a climatic one. What is the impact of ramping up $4T worth of sequestration technology?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I'm glad to hear you are feeling better Following the USPOL thread of all things. This whole election business is such a hilarious trainwreck. I expect it won't last long though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Except "not having kids" is the solution on an individual level and that's a non starter Not having kids is probably the best thing anyone can do right now... both in terms of being "a solution" as much as there can be such a thing, but having kids seems a lot like selling tickets on the Titanic at this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7wntm7QVXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9tTMAaxrxo
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:As I think most of us agree, policy action is required beyond the reduction of collective personal emissions, but the thoughtful actions of the general populace can and must make up a large fraction of the way that we have to go to achieve a non-catastrophic climate/biosphere/resource situation in the near future. Wrong. Magical time travel machines that go back in time 20 years and make that policy action are required. There is literally nothing we can do as a species to stop this now. We lack the ability to collectively organize in the way required to handle this problem, and even if we did have the ability we missed the window of opportunity that included us saving industrialized civilization as we know it. The many feedback loops present on the planet have taken over at this point. The name of the game is adaptation and survival at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I'm willing to believe this, but I would certainly like to see your description of what would need to be done to prevent harm and how that's going to happen, because I haven't even seen an effective mitigation strategy at this point from anyone in this thread, only pointless delays that insure when things do get as bad as we know they will, there will be more people around for it to negatively impact. If I understand your question, you're asking how significant reductions in carbon emissions might realistically come about. The actual method to reduce emissions isn't controversial; internationally implement realistic carbon pricing and publicly fund the infrastructure needed to transition to a zero-carbon economy (maybe western nations need to help developing nations with the infrastructure). There are some tricks we can do like Obama's CPP (which is essentially backdoor carbon pricing) but that's marginal. The real question is how do you get the political support to do this? IMHO the most realistic path is the initial impact of global warming becomes undeniable and crosses over the threshold into "crisis". Something like a major city permanently flooding, or maybe Saudi Arabia becomes uninhabitable. During crises normal democratic processes can be sidestepped, and it's politically possible to implement the reforms that are currently stymied. This isn't even necessarily incompatible with the current neoliberal order, we don't need full socialism now (although it would help). The problem is the disaster that precipitates action has to be bad enough to trigger a "crisis", but happens early enough that catastrophic warming can be avoided ie humanity needs to be lucky. It's still possible of course that an international response develops over the few years through normal political processes. Maybe the Democrats take all three federal branches in November, pass a carbon tax and bully the rest of the G8 to do the same. Maybe western nations actually follow the Paris agreement. I don't think the "politics as normal" solution is very likely given recent history and time is not on our side but it's not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Following the USPOL thread of all things. This whole election business is such a hilarious trainwreck. I expect it won't last long though. Schadenfreude is the best medicine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:He's saying that anyone who doesn't share his (wrong and stupid) opinion is a bad person. If we are bad people for our views, it makes him easy to ignore them as a valid alternative because he's not a bad person. Ignorance is bliss. It's easy to ignore you when you're literally saying "poo poo's hosed, may as well ignore it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
gently caress.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:IMHO the most realistic path is the initial impact of global warming becomes undeniable and crosses over the threshold into "crisis". Do you understand that if we take coordinated global action today, there's literally nothing we can do to stop a 4c+ raise in the global temperature at this point, including shutting down civilization. I don't think many of us here are being honest about the state of the science today. Do you understand the nature of the feedback loops operating today and if so, what makes you think we can stop say, 10m of sea level rise. computer parts posted:It's easy to ignore you when you're literally saying "poo poo's hosed, may as well ignore it". That's actually not what I'm saying but it doesn't surprise me people incapable of facing reality would see that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Wrong. Magical time travel machines that go back in time 20 years and make that policy action are required. There is literally nothing we can do as a species to stop this now. We lack the ability to collectively organize in the way required to handle this problem, and even if we did have the ability we missed the window of opportunity that included us saving industrialized civilization as we know it. The many feedback loops present on the planet have taken over at this point. The name of the game is adaptation and survival at this point. "Therefore, I reject any personal obligation to the rest of life on this plant, because reasons."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:"Therefore, I reject any personal obligation to the rest of life on this plant, because reasons." NewForumSoftware posted:Most of my statements are directed at people who I would assume actually do care about this poo poo, have already taken the steps to minimize their carbon footprint, etc. I moved to a community that's much more ecologically focused, gave away my car, stopped using air travel, etc. But I mean, there's nothing appreciable for people like me to do other than watch the world burn at this point and try not to let it consume you. The only thing left I could do is agree to not have children and that's just not a sacrifice I'm willing to make. If that's the "unnecessary environmental degradation" we're talking about we're already so hosed that talking about individual action is a comedy. Please, tell me what I should be doing as a "personal obligation to the rest of the life on this planet"? Continue to ignore reality like we've done since 1950? Pat everyone on the back and tell them it will all be ok if we drive EVs and have solar panels on our houses?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That's actually not what I'm saying NewForumSoftware posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Please, tell me what I should be doing as a "personal obligation to the rest of the life on this planet"? Continue to ignore reality like we've done since 1950? Pat everyone on the back and tell them it will all be ok if we drive EVs and have solar panels on our houses? Organize, and fight for the best future that you can. Nihilism is yielding to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Organize, and fight for the best future that you can. Nihilism is yielding to the status quo. I already am. I'm not Nihilistic, I'm Realistic. Choose your battles. The people who were born today are here because of no fault of their own. Even if I feel some stupid responsibility to the Earth, humanity (especially organized) doesn't give a gently caress. We've reached a point where there's literally nothing we can do to stop it. So I don't really understand the harm in accepting that and living life just understanding that reality. Focus on the people around you and the area around you because it's where you can spend time and actually have a positive impact. Beyond that, I don't think people should feel shame in air travel (again, I don't travel by air) or having children. Not taking flights won't have an appreciable impact at this point so you might as well enjoy the technology while it lasts if you're someone that has those desires. I could easily sit here and tell all of you to move out of cities, start homesteading, get off the grid! And there was a time I thought it might make a difference. But we missed that opportunity. You might be willing to read "if we don't act now it's too late" for your entire life and keep believing it. The reality is the first guys saying it were right. It's too late.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Please, illustrate again, I must have missed it. me posted:An average person will produce X environmental damage per year, for the remainder of their lifetime (where X represents greenhouse gas emissions, air, ground and water pollutants, resource depletion, erosion and desertification, plus any others you can think of). NewForumSoftware posted:Well yes, but that's a good idea regardless of whether Climate Change is a thing or not. Most of my statements are directed at people who I would assume actually do care about this poo poo, have already taken the steps to minimize their carbon footprint, etc. I moved to a community that's much more ecologically focused, gave away my car, stopped using air travel, etc. But I mean, there's nothing appreciable for people like me to do other than watch the world burn at this point and try not to let it consume you. The only thing left I could do is agree to not have children and that's just not a sacrifice I'm willing to make. If that's the "unnecessary environmental degradation" we're talking about we're already so hosed that talking about individual action is a comedy. Following from the reasoning above, the decision to have one child will result in an increase in environmental degradation equal to 50% of your personal contribution, over the rest of your lifetime [50% because there will presumably be a second person making the decision to have a child with you]. This is probably more than or at least comparable to the decrease in damage that your positive actions will have relative to an average person, and each additional child adds another 50%. Since you believe that the "world will burn" within the remainder of your lifetime, why would you inflict that on your own child for the whole if it's lifetime? If you care about climate change as much as you claim, you should think about adoption rather than producing more consumers. Last second fake edit: NewForumSoftware posted:Wrong. Magical time travel machines that go back in time 20 years and make that policy action are required. There is literally nothing we can do as a species to stop this now. We lack the ability to collectively organize in the way required to handle this problem, and even if we did have the ability we missed the window of opportunity that included us saving industrialized civilization as we know it. The many feedback loops present on the planet have taken over at this point. The name of the game is adaptation and survival at this point. This guy wants to put more children into this world. Real edit: Not putting his own children into this world is "just not a sacrifice he's willing to make"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you understand that if we take coordinated global action today, there's literally nothing we can do to stop a 4c+ raise in the global temperature at this point, including shutting down civilization. Want to back that claim up with science?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well yes, but that's a good idea regardless of whether Climate Change is a thing or not. Most of my statements are directed at people who I would assume actually do care about this poo poo, have already taken the steps to minimize their carbon footprint, etc. I moved to a community that's much more ecologically focused, gave away my car, stopped using air travel, etc. But I mean, there's nothing appreciable for people like me to do other than watch the world burn at this point and try not to let it consume you. The only thing left I could do is agree to not have children and that's just not a sacrifice I'm willing to make. If that's the "unnecessary environmental degradation" we're talking about we're already so hosed that talking about individual action is a comedy. What makes the whole "don't have kids" argument so dumb is there is no way it's ever politically acceptable, it can't be universalized. A few individuals might decide to forego having kids, but unless you can convince the vast majority of humanity to go along (you won't) the reductions are marginal. Individual actions aren't enough on this issue, collective action is required. NewForumSoftware posted:Do you understand that if we take coordinated global action today, there's literally nothing we can do to stop a 4c+ raise in the global temperature at this point, including shutting down civilization. I don't think the future impacts of climate change are that certain, it's a difficult subject. I did admit that humanity probably needs to get lucky in some regards, positive feedback cycles need to be less severe than feared etc. I fully agree that 10m of sea rise is likely inevitable at this point, but there is a huge difference between it happening over 100 vs 500 years. The second is pretty survivable, the first not so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:00
|
|