to freeze it. If you want to stop it quickly, you need temperatures below zero.

what is your solution? Or is just pissing on efforts to resolve issues
neglected over all the past 20 decades, just something to wile away
your oh so precious wisdom sans a more viable solution?

You are better than that.

The rest of us understand the costs to repair is equal to or greater
than the profits enjoyed by those who care less for the lives
impacted.

since the only viable solution is for us to stop burning carbon.

I've been posting here for almost 20 years, largely in the Environment & Energy group, working to bring neglected, vitally important stories on climate, on extinction, on ocean acidification, on pollution to the attention of the members of this board.

Again, if that bothers you, that's your problem.

Don't shoot the messenger just because the truth hurts.

and enjoy what is coming. Concentration better made in how some humans may survive in 50 years

You nailed it with "And consider where we live - in a country hag-ridden with childish, whiny clowns who can't even be bothered to wear a mask in the middle of a fucking pandemic." If wearing masks in a pandemic is such a hard sell, you can well imagine how quickly a truly effective set of climate policies would derail, assuming anyone had the power to propose them.

The decades-long lag between action and consequence is (and always has been) the deal-breaker for mitigating climate change. We knew the negative consequences of economic & population growth back in the 1970s (and even back to the 1800s), but the bill came due so far in the future that few people cared.

By the same token, now that we're seeing the results of that inaction, few people are willing to voluntarily suffer hardships for results they'll not see in their lifetime. That's not solely an American attitude either, it applies even to countries and cultures with a greater sense of obligation across generations. China -- which often takes a very long view of history -- is still prioritizing today's economic growth over tomorrow's climate catastrophes.

We're all in a boat that's taking in water far faster than we can bail it out, even if everyone on board were working at it (which they're not). Admitting that's the situation is viewed as "defeatist" as opposed to pragmatic. That's also a common human failing.

Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2020, 06:37 AM - Edit history (2)

climate scientists that think so either. None. Are climate scientists theoretical eggheads that aren't practical or what? Or are they just a bunch of liars that only tell us what they think will keep their jobs? (If they admit it's all over, then what use are they?)

That is what the RW has been telling us for decades -- except a slightly different version -- they claim climate scientists make global warming out to be way worse than it really is so that can justify their profession and salaries. Or not only is it not as bad as the pointy-headed liberal climate science professors say it is, but that it's really a hoax, and/or that the earth has actually been cooling since 1998 or whatever.

There's an extremely popular meme around these parts that the Covid economic shutdown and the consequent reduction in CO2 emissions -- and yet atmospheric CO2 levels continued rising -- proved that emissions reductions don't help, that positive feedback loops now dominate and will doom such efforts. No, they do not prove that and I don't know any climate scientists who think that.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142529282#post30

In short, NOAA.gov says the emissions reduction over a few months would not cause a change in the CO2 atmosphere level that would stand out above the natural variability. And...


The point being that given that only half of the CO2 that we emit each year in a normal year lately (pre-Covid) is absorbed, it would take a sustained cutback of more than 50% in emissions for the actual CO2 ppm level in the atmosphere to drop, as opposed to go up more slowly. That's not good news.

"I don't admit that if we all worked at it hard enough, we still would sink. Don't know any climate scientists that think so either. None."

That's odd. I've read any number of articles and books in which climate scientists speak about the despair they fight constantly, the emotional toll it takes when they contemplate a very bleak future for themselves and/or their children.

It's really a moot point whether everyone working together could turn around the damages of climate change because -- as we've discussed in the OP and subsequent posts -- we aren't doing that at an individual or a government level. It's difficult to get the most modest band-aid efforts in place, much less the comprehensive and draconian re-structuring of our entire industry infrastructure.

If we ever get to the point where humanity as a whole is really trying, making substantive changes across the globe, then we will have the luxury to debate whether it's going to make any difference. Meanwhile, in the real world of humans ignoring a pandemic that is killing tens of thousands of people, climate change grinds on inexorably.

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2020, 05:06 PM - Edit history (3)

emissions to near zero.

Boomer:

Progree:

Boomer:

I have too.

Just to clarify, my remark said that IF we ALL worked at it HARD ENOUGH. That includes enforced government policies, not just individual efforts. I'm saying that it is physically possible, though I think, like you, it is very unlikely because the necessary number of people and governments and organizations are not going to do enough before it really gets way out of hand. In other words, human greed and stupidity will win out.

I know of no climate scientist who is saying though that we're now past the tipping point so that even if we greatly reduced CO2 emissions (to well below 50% of where we are now), that heating would continue because of the positive feedback effects already in place such as CO2 released by peat burning and forest fires and reduced ice extent (reducing planetary albedo) and more moisture in the atmosphere (which traps heat) and all that.

But CO2 atmospheric levels going up during the partial Covid economic shutdowns is not proof that even if we reduced CO2 emissions to a small fraction of what they are now, CO2 atmospheric levels would continue to climb. But I've been reading posts like that here several times lately, with no links to any climate scientist or organizations who concur. And concluding with what the hell, since nothing can be done about it, we might as well just quit trying, and learn to "adapt" instead.

So I added the link to NOAA that explains that we wouldn't be able to tell from atmospheric CO2 measurements if 4 months of Covid CO2 emissions reductions had any effect. And that about 50% of CO2 emissions are being absorbed by terrestrial plants and oceans, implying that reductions of more than 50% in CO2 emissions would cause a reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Yes, I've read of despairing climate scientists too, and I would strongly suspect they too, like you and me, think we're going to blow through 1.5 deg C and 2.0 deg C and far beyond, because like you, and me, they don't think humans will put in the necessary effort.

But I know of none who say that it is physically impossible because of runaway feedback effects, as proven by the failure of Covid CO2 emissions reductions to reduce (or noticeably slow the increase of) CO2 atmospheric levels.

I continue to make efforts to reduce my GHG footprint, for example, by not driving for more than a year (and I haven't Uber'd/Lyft'd/taxi'd at all either, and nobody is driving me anywhere either, with the exception of just a few bus trips). And I vote for candidates that are strongest on climate change mitigation policies. What little we all manage to do may buy some extra time for, I don't know what, a geoengineering solution (I don't see anything in particular now) or whatever. We just don't know.

But I fundamentally refuse to be the "pragmatist" cynic that pooh poohs every and all efforts, gets a Ford F-150 and runs my air-conditioner to within half a degree of the perfect temperature (I use fans instead and sweat a little at times). And jumps on a plane to take yet another overseas vacation or visit every relative on the damn family tree because in my own mind I'm some sort of wonderful family person. But that's just me. I'm not looking for an excuse to make no effort, as some seem to be.

I vote in elections too, although the chance of my vote changing any outcome above school board level is probably even less than a geoengineered solution to climate change. I know some cynical "pragmatist" know-it-alls who tell me their vote and my vote isn't going to make a difference. I acknowledge their superior intelligence, but, being the ding-dong that I am, I vote anyway, and voting for me takes a considerable amount of effort because I spend several hours researching the so-called non-partisan offices and judicial ones, and primaries ones (an effort that again, the pragmatist cynical know-it-all would point out has virtually zero chance of making a difference).

Edited to add - I'm not saying you are the cynical type that uses the dire outlook as an excuse to engage in extravagant unnecessary GHG-emitting activities, or even to not attempt to cut your GHG emissions. I don't know enough about you to think that, let alone to know that.

"I'm not saying you are the cynical type that uses the dire outlook as an excuse to engage in extravagant unnecessary GHG-emitting activities, or even to not attempt to cut your GHG emissions. I don't know enough about you to think that, let alone to know that."

The lack of assumptions is appreciated, but just how much of an effort to make is a problem I wrestle with all the time. Even though I'm pretty sure we're doomed, I still believe in making an effort to do the right thing and -- at the very least -- not make things worse. Due to health issues, not to mention the pandemic, I don't travel and I'm planning to continue working from home even after (if there is an after) the pandemic.

We considered trying to install solar in our house years ago -- despite knowing we'd never get a return on our investment due to the general undesirability of our neighborhood -- but our city planner said we were the first to even ask about it and our state (WV) discourages it. We were still willing to forge ahead, but there were no solar installers willing to come out to our location.

I've pretty much dropped it all now. We're not rich, I'm retiring in two years, and I'm staying focused on keeping our head above water. Practical considerations of the now have outweighed the needs of a future we'll never see.

Humans are great at dealing with visible, short-term issues. We're not so great at dealing with invisible, long-term issues that require great sacrifice without any immediate reward.