Rendered at 04:30:41 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
silverFork 1 days ago [-]
Looks like nothing has changed with Co2, it is following the same exact trend line. Methane for some reason had flat lined 2000-2006, is back up too; mostly likely its due to increased livestock farming serving increased population. Learned a new term. global albedo.. which means an earth that is getting darker and absorbing more light.
Ancalagon 1 days ago [-]
At least the Methane curve isn't accelerating? I think? Guess we need a derivative graph to really tell.
Praying the Clathrate gun hypothesis isn't applicable.
Thanks for this. I'd never heard of Michael Dowd, but I've landed on a secular version of this. It's nice to know there are others who share this view.
bobson381 1 days ago [-]
As far as I can tell he was fairly ecumenical being UU - his spirituality is probably close-ish to Alan Watts or Joanna Macy.
johnea 18 hours ago [-]
I think the number of comments here says it all.
The orange orangutan-in-chief has created enough of a chaos circus that what is arguably the greatest threat to our species long term survival, has basically dropped of the priority list, and the news cycle.
With 1/2 of the US population thinking that chemistry 101 is libtard fake news, and that there's some big invisible white guy in outer space that's going to "save" us.
Once again, I'm led directly to the conclusion, that I'm REALLY glad I wasn't born into the millennial generations...
Good luck with all of that...
blooalien 18 hours ago [-]
> Once again, I'm led directly to the conclusion, that I'm REALLY glad I wasn't born into the millennial generations...
Yeah, at this point I'm genuinely hoping to be dead before "Mad Max" world (or "Terminator") become our new actual reality.
I find it so very sad that "Idiocracy" is actually a hopeful looking future compared to the much more probable possible outcomes portrayed in our fictional future movies.
Sorry, young-folk... I wish we'd left you a better world instead of a pretty much solid guarantee that your future will suck more than we can possibly imagine.
:(
Yizahi 17 hours ago [-]
It's not like progressives are that much better. Ok, we are better, but we also often held weird backwards beliefs about climate science too.
For instance, I've tried to talk about carbon capture (any type) both here and on r/Futurology, both supposedly very progressive and both times I got piled on and downvoted heavily. And my opponents never explained how the hell are they going to deal with an actual CO2 in the atmosphere. The only feeble realistic response was "plant trees, duh". Guess they aren't aware that trees are not immortal. Apparently the whole discourse about carbon capture is poisoned because some oil corpo has also used these words. Oh well, let's forget about one of the only 3 viable climate change tools because it sounds icky.
Or the other time I've tried to discuss so called "hot models" which IPCC carefully ignores in their reports (the models are literally from IPCC's own model set, they just manually exclude them from results for political reasons). Same result - just because some paid YT blogger mentioned them in a video, they are now "tainted" and haram. Let's ignore additional data, because it's now icky.
Very frustrating, when both corrupt politicians, megacorpos AND greens, all reject whole climate change concepts, in the time when we are severely lacking both data and ideas for the solutions.
blooalien 3 hours ago [-]
> ... and both times I got piled on and downvoted heavily. And my opponents never explained how the hell are they going to deal with an actual CO2 in the atmosphere. The only feeble realistic response was "plant trees, duh".
Yeah, that ain't helpful at all. They should take a moment (since they're already taking time to comment in the first place) to explain why technological carbon capture really isn't a valid solution all by itself. It's extremely expensive and not very efficient/effective overall. Definitely should not be just ignored outright though, because many technological inefficiences have been overcome in the past, and this one could possibly be also. It can still be a part of the overall solution even in it's current state. Just ain't likely to be some "magical cure-all" anytime soon. We must do other things that are already known to be efficient and effective while we're still able.
> Guess they aren't aware that trees are not immortal.
Trees don't need to stay alive to maintain the carbon captured during their lifetime. If they fall (or are cut down) and are buried, the carbon they contain can stay captured pretty much indefinitely.
Praying the Clathrate gun hypothesis isn't applicable.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/@thegreatstory
The orange orangutan-in-chief has created enough of a chaos circus that what is arguably the greatest threat to our species long term survival, has basically dropped of the priority list, and the news cycle.
With 1/2 of the US population thinking that chemistry 101 is libtard fake news, and that there's some big invisible white guy in outer space that's going to "save" us.
Once again, I'm led directly to the conclusion, that I'm REALLY glad I wasn't born into the millennial generations...
Good luck with all of that...
Yeah, at this point I'm genuinely hoping to be dead before "Mad Max" world (or "Terminator") become our new actual reality.
I find it so very sad that "Idiocracy" is actually a hopeful looking future compared to the much more probable possible outcomes portrayed in our fictional future movies.
Sorry, young-folk... I wish we'd left you a better world instead of a pretty much solid guarantee that your future will suck more than we can possibly imagine.
For instance, I've tried to talk about carbon capture (any type) both here and on r/Futurology, both supposedly very progressive and both times I got piled on and downvoted heavily. And my opponents never explained how the hell are they going to deal with an actual CO2 in the atmosphere. The only feeble realistic response was "plant trees, duh". Guess they aren't aware that trees are not immortal. Apparently the whole discourse about carbon capture is poisoned because some oil corpo has also used these words. Oh well, let's forget about one of the only 3 viable climate change tools because it sounds icky.
Or the other time I've tried to discuss so called "hot models" which IPCC carefully ignores in their reports (the models are literally from IPCC's own model set, they just manually exclude them from results for political reasons). Same result - just because some paid YT blogger mentioned them in a video, they are now "tainted" and haram. Let's ignore additional data, because it's now icky.
Very frustrating, when both corrupt politicians, megacorpos AND greens, all reject whole climate change concepts, in the time when we are severely lacking both data and ideas for the solutions.
Yeah, that ain't helpful at all. They should take a moment (since they're already taking time to comment in the first place) to explain why technological carbon capture really isn't a valid solution all by itself. It's extremely expensive and not very efficient/effective overall. Definitely should not be just ignored outright though, because many technological inefficiences have been overcome in the past, and this one could possibly be also. It can still be a part of the overall solution even in it's current state. Just ain't likely to be some "magical cure-all" anytime soon. We must do other things that are already known to be efficient and effective while we're still able.
> Guess they aren't aware that trees are not immortal.
Trees don't need to stay alive to maintain the carbon captured during their lifetime. If they fall (or are cut down) and are buried, the carbon they contain can stay captured pretty much indefinitely.