houseofleft comments on ‘It’s too late’: David Suzuki says the fight against climate change is lost

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?

Does it have to be tech? Ocean plankton, peat bogs, forests, etc all do a great job of removing and storing carbon. They're being destroyed currently, but we could choose to bolster them instead.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Those are also technologies, just not high tech.

Here is a question then:

According to the science, the ocean current changes are going to start driving climate change via a doubling of present day CO2. When the permafrost melts it will create as much additional CO2 as all human industry does on a repeating annual basis right now. This is an all natural process where CO2 pollution will snowball faster and faster with no human ability to adjust it.

so, do you think natural processes like growing trees have the potential where they going to erase that much feedback? Keeping in mind that the peat bogs, forests and ocean plankton we have today in a less damaged ecosystem ALREADY failed to curtail a much smaller human created CO2 pulse?

Hmm?

What you're talking about is BECCS, by the way. Believe me or don't, but the UN climate change panel already included this in all the accounting! Like, what the projections for the future say is that we are going to invent these technologies and deploy them and erase the CO2, and that's assumed to be real and already factored into all the future projections...and they are still talking about 8 degrees of warming even including that. Notwithstanding that we have never done this yet and don't know if it works.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

I guess maybe I'm missing something?

You're arguing like current climate models predict 8 degrees warming, but my understanding is that a worst case scenario is 4 degrees- the best reference I can find is UN climate summit comparisons[0].

Do you have any references of stuff predicting 8 degrees or is it your personal prediction? If it's the second, I don't really have the knowledge to debate current climate models. If it's the first link me some stuff!

My understanding (based on reading around and nothing else, I'm not a climate scientist) is we're at 2 degrees already, 3 degrees is likely and 4 degrees would be close enough to catastrophic that talking about 5 degrees isn't worthwhile. There's still margin for human society to stop the worst of outcomes.

[0]https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5c-2c-3c-and-4c/

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Equilibrium global warming for TODAY'S co2 concentration is 10°.

Here is one reference, this number is right in the paper's abstract: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false

Long story short, ECS was underestimated for political purposes. If ECS was as high as the paleoclimatology data showed, it would have removed all hope, so scientists completely ignored that scenario going back to the 1990s...

As this paper points out, carbon capture cannot work...the discussion is under the heading "Greenhouse gas emissions situation".

There's still margin for human society to stop the worst of outcomes.

Ah, OK! Problem solved. Lol.

This is what everyone is saying. The paper I just linked also said that. But what are the solutions? What does everyone think we can do? How do we avoid the bad situation? I'm genuinely asking.

I have not seen any solution that is fully scoped that gives a specific way of changing anything. They just say we "have time" to do something but they don't say what to do.

As I stated: we seem to not know what to do.

Hint: this is why you're nitpicking about the degrees of rise. It's a typical psychological defense mechanism. If it was 3 or 9 or 17 it would not have any relevance in the face of our utter inability to deal with ANY scenarios regardless of the number.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Thanks for sharing - I feel a little dissapointed that you think I'm "nitpicking". From my point of view I'm asking you for further details, and you've explained really fully.

I'm not some internet troll, just a normal person concerned about climate change, and to this point:

Ah, OK! Problem solved. Lol.

Go back and read my first comment, in no way did I claim climate change was solvable.

Thanks for the paper though, will definitely take it away and read it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I feel a little dissapointed that you think I'm "nitpicking".

So ...I apologize if that seemed harsh or insulting.

Let me explain from my perspective. Analogy time:

Claim: You have been a problem gambler for decades and you have a major lifetime debt built up.

Me: How are you going to get out of debt?

You: I'm going to gamble less.

Me: You need to pay back the entire debt!

You: I can afford the credit card payments if I get a new card with a lower interest rate.

Me: You're not hearing what I'm saying.

You: But the interest rates are only....

Etc.

Like....whoosh...not AT ALL facing the elephant in the room which is that no amount of further INCREASE is a DECREASE!! Like the technical discussion and details are not FULL ACCEPTANCE of the main point I'm making. It's DENIAL.

Climate change is exactly like this. The scheme you're discussing is that we can kick the can and "still have time to act". (Is it 3 degrees or 5? Is it 2 decades or 4? How dire and how immanent is the crisis that is 99.999% inescapable at this point, let's direct our attention to this and argue?)

This is like when Wile E Coyote runs past the edge of the cliff and hangs in mid air and looks down. But he still has time, he hasn't started falling yet. Ok...so time for WHAT? What option does Wile E Coyote have that puts him back on the cliff?

This is like gambling more to try to win to solve the gambling problem. If you fail you have dug a bigger quicker grave.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent