I mean, we aren’t totally screwed. Just climate will get worse and worse until we stop burning fossil fuels. It will eventually stabilize at whatever amount of carbon we end up at when we stop. It’s just, how bad will it get in the meantime.
Won’t stop us from mass migration, and deaths on an order of magnitude that makes covid look like a blip, and also mass extinction of a large majority of the species on earth. But, we can pull through (I think, maybe)…
Is it supposed to be comforting knowing that a mostly lifeless husk of a planet will exist after we kill off basically every known species? There’s such a thing as too much optimism you know. It’s OK to let the unnecessary death of everything you’ve ever seen be the point of the conversation.
I disagree with your prognosis. The earth has been hit by massive meteors, or huge volcanoes erupted - plenty of species survived. Your ancestors, in fact. There’s radiotrophic fungus growing in the Chernobyl reactor. The earth will be fine, as will many of the lower species.
Again, “the Earth will be fine” is not a comforting statement when it is immediately followed by “but anyone and everything you know will die”. I don’t know why someone always insists on making that distinction. It’s not meaningful to anyone reading it.
You’re still not getting the point. In what way is that a comforting thought to you? In more simple terms, why does it make a damn bit of difference to you what happens in a million years?
In this potential future you, your family, all your friends, and everyone you’ve ever met are dead for no better reason than unchecked human greed and when confronting that possibility all you want to talk about is hypothetical flora and fauna. You’re disassociating from the actual problem to the point that I don’t think you’re truly processing what it means for you.
Nothing has ever done anything good if you view things like that, what good has an ant or a flower done?
The universe doesn’t mind us modifying this rock to our needs, it doesn’t even really mind our pollution either really it’s only us that have that romantic desire for certain types of beauty - the universe churns up and burns down anything it feels like on its ballet, the moments of novelty and beauty are magnificent and destructive.
We are a part of nature, just as volcano and tree take over and change the landscape so do ant and human. It is all beautiful and all filled with wonder.
It took great upheavals and vast destruction to ready the world for us, endless apocalypse such as the replacing of the atmosphere with oxygen or invasive species colonising every last inch of soil and sea. It would be a tragedy if we were extinct, one we must fight to avoid just as trees fought to survive and ants. That is what this world is and what all worlds are.
I mean, the species on the planet, and the climate kind of is, so yeah, it kind of is. What’s your definition of screwed that says the planet itself will be just fine?
The carbon sequestered in the earth in the form of coal, oil and gas hasn’t always been in the earth. After all, hydro carbons are in fact hundreds of millions of years of dead trees buried under mud sequestering atmospheric CO2. Which implies there was a time with all that CO2 in the air yet still trees to capture it. By releasing it all, we reset the biosphere’s clock to about a time when earth supported a different kind of life (one without us in it), but life nonetheless.
Frankly, the comparisons to Mars and Venus seem a bit overblown.
Maybe, maybe not. We’re dealing with extremes that are accelerated here that have never been seen before in earths history, except when the dinosaurs went extinct, and I think 4 other very sudden climate changing events. But this one being human driven is unique, bcz all other events were naturally occurring (except the meteor impact of course). Species don’t have time to adapt to sudden changes in climate like this. We are very likely killing all life on earth right now, and it’s possible it will never recover.
You assume it will get better when we stop burning fuel but many things dont just get better when you stop doing what is bad. A lot of things have a point of no return, where you can’t just undo all the damage that has been done
I’m not assuming, that assumption is rooted in science. I’m also not saying things will get better. What I am saying is that the climate will stabilize at whatever new normal there is with the amount of carbon in the carbon life cycle, that means whatever extremes exist at that point, will continue to exist.
Methane is very potent, and will cause issues for sure. You’re absolutely right about that. But it also has a much shorter half life than carbon does, so it doesn’t have the same kind of long term effects as carbon does.
Does science say when things will stabilise after we stop using coal and oil? I bet it’s not immediate. I bet it will take a lot longer than many think if not hundreds of years just to stabilise into something that maybe isn’t even liveable.
Yes, something like a hundred years or so before it stabilizes. I forget what the models are saying, bcz I don’t do climate science, my fiance does, so I usually ask her these queations.
Also though there are already products being made in carbon negative processes including sequestered jet fuel and various building materials. The cost (economic and ecological) of power generation has fallen dramatically and continues to do so while design tools continue to improve, this enables better and more ecologically’ sustainable infrastructure which will help increase the rate of transition to ecologically’ sustainable living.
We absolutely will be pulling significant amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere in twenty or thirty years from now, both from bio processing (algae to plastic for example) and direct capture.
It’s hard to guess what the world will look like in a hundred years but any model that assumes things will stop changing is just being silly.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of research on carbon sequestration, and I’ve not seen anything actually promising on it. We can’t rely on processes that aren’t in place, and aren’t proven to work to pin the hopes of our species, when the real solution is right in front of us. Stop burning fossil fuels
I’m not am expert in it, my partner does research in climate adaptation, and there are people who do that research in her department. As far as I’ve heard, there isn’t anything that promising on the horizon.
And I can’t stress this enough, we should not be relying on tech to try to save us when all we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels. It’s really that simple. But everybody wants business as usual, so we’re putting our hopes in pipedream technology that doesn’t exist hoping it will save us from ourselves. Seems pretty stupid to me.
Ha ok, changed a bit now hasn’t it? So you talk to your partner in depth about these subjects but can’t ask about it to help you answer the questions because of reasons…
What you actually mean is without doing any research you assumed something that fits with your preconceived dislike of technology solutions? Or maybe you just saw someone else say it so repeated it with a slightly exaggerated truthiness tone to and make it seem more believable.
Stop burning fossil fuels isn’t something we can just do over night, especially when people fight against good alternatives - and double especially when people fight against them based on knee jerk emotional response without really knowing much about it…
Carbon based efuels are going to be a huge part in the transition to an ecologically sustainable society, the model using sequestered carbon and renewable power generation is just one of several incredibly promising areas of chemistry at the moment.
Carbon based efuels are going to be a huge part in the transition to an ecologically sustainable society, the model using sequestered carbon and renewable power generation is just one of several incredibly promising areas of chemistry at the moment.
Exactly, everybody thinks technology is going to save us from ourselves, and that’s why we are fucked.
And for the record, I didn’t ask my partner about any of this bcz she was out of town at a conference. Why would I bother her while she’s working to settle a dumb internet argument?
And now we see the real emotion behind your desire to dismiss tech solutions.
It’s sad but I really think a lot of people would rather feel smug about the world burning than put out the fire.
I genuinely think a lot of the resistance to renewable adoption comes from people scarred that it’ll work. Modern chemistry is absolutely amazing, for some reason their successes upset people - you see it everywhere, did you go as far to reject the vaccine? That’s the same ‘it must be bad it’s science’ thinking.
The USAF have performed huge studies on SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) and have concluded they’re effective, reliable, and economically competitive - this isn’t some hippy idealism or scientific fanboyism it’s the cold calculated reality of the most advanced war machine in the world.
They already work, they tested them in all their engines and decided that an e-fuel made from sequestered carbon is the best solution - other saf have been used in transatlantic flights by commercial airlines for a while now, generally in a blended mix with kerosene but pure saf flights have been made.
It’s not common yet because we don’t have the infrastructure established to make them in significant quantities, this is changing with various facilities being built but it could change a lot quicker if there was a push to support transition technologies rather than a knee jerk anti science sentimentalism wrapped in fraudulent pretence of ‘but I read all the research…’ - this isn’t a flat earth, vaccines aren’t from the devil, and we’re not going to drop oil use without a viable replacement.
We need carbon sequestration, we need to support research into that rather than pretending to care about the plant as some form of dunk on progress. It’s just like the train line we tried to build in the UK, it would have cut down the ecological cost of cargo transport hugely and reduced the amount of lorries on the road significantly but eco warriors waged war on its construction attacking machinery, blocking it’s path with tunnels, and endless propaganda against it that got pushed by people who hate progress in any form.
And remember this is only one of the promising technologies, I don’t think it’s even the most promising tbh but its one of the easier to explain and is incredibly promising. You of course know know all this because of the regular in detail conversations you have about it with your double doctor scientist partner who has a very busy schedule.
40 years ago i had a t-shirt that said the world was running out of time…
Time won’t help any more
I mean, we aren’t totally screwed. Just climate will get worse and worse until we stop burning fossil fuels. It will eventually stabilize at whatever amount of carbon we end up at when we stop. It’s just, how bad will it get in the meantime.
Won’t stop us from mass migration, and deaths on an order of magnitude that makes covid look like a blip, and also mass extinction of a large majority of the species on earth. But, we can pull through (I think, maybe)…
deleted by creator
Is it supposed to be comforting knowing that a mostly lifeless husk of a planet will exist after we kill off basically every known species? There’s such a thing as too much optimism you know. It’s OK to let the unnecessary death of everything you’ve ever seen be the point of the conversation.
I disagree with your prognosis. The earth has been hit by massive meteors, or huge volcanoes erupted - plenty of species survived. Your ancestors, in fact. There’s radiotrophic fungus growing in the Chernobyl reactor. The earth will be fine, as will many of the lower species.
We’re fucked if we don’t change our ways, though.
Again, “the Earth will be fine” is not a comforting statement when it is immediately followed by “but anyone and everything you know will die”. I don’t know why someone always insists on making that distinction. It’s not meaningful to anyone reading it.
It’s not meant to be comforting, it’s supposed to be tongue in cheek.
deleted by creator
You’re still not getting the point. In what way is that a comforting thought to you? In more simple terms, why does it make a damn bit of difference to you what happens in a million years?
In this potential future you, your family, all your friends, and everyone you’ve ever met are dead for no better reason than unchecked human greed and when confronting that possibility all you want to talk about is hypothetical flora and fauna. You’re disassociating from the actual problem to the point that I don’t think you’re truly processing what it means for you.
deleted by creator
Ok, well maybe you should lead with that next time so people will know you’re coming at it from a wildly different angle than most.
deleted by creator
Nothing has ever done anything good if you view things like that, what good has an ant or a flower done?
The universe doesn’t mind us modifying this rock to our needs, it doesn’t even really mind our pollution either really it’s only us that have that romantic desire for certain types of beauty - the universe churns up and burns down anything it feels like on its ballet, the moments of novelty and beauty are magnificent and destructive.
We are a part of nature, just as volcano and tree take over and change the landscape so do ant and human. It is all beautiful and all filled with wonder.
It took great upheavals and vast destruction to ready the world for us, endless apocalypse such as the replacing of the atmosphere with oxygen or invasive species colonising every last inch of soil and sea. It would be a tragedy if we were extinct, one we must fight to avoid just as trees fought to survive and ants. That is what this world is and what all worlds are.
deleted by creator
I mean, the species on the planet, and the climate kind of is, so yeah, it kind of is. What’s your definition of screwed that says the planet itself will be just fine?
The carbon sequestered in the earth in the form of coal, oil and gas hasn’t always been in the earth. After all, hydro carbons are in fact hundreds of millions of years of dead trees buried under mud sequestering atmospheric CO2. Which implies there was a time with all that CO2 in the air yet still trees to capture it. By releasing it all, we reset the biosphere’s clock to about a time when earth supported a different kind of life (one without us in it), but life nonetheless.
Frankly, the comparisons to Mars and Venus seem a bit overblown.
Maybe, maybe not. We’re dealing with extremes that are accelerated here that have never been seen before in earths history, except when the dinosaurs went extinct, and I think 4 other very sudden climate changing events. But this one being human driven is unique, bcz all other events were naturally occurring (except the meteor impact of course). Species don’t have time to adapt to sudden changes in climate like this. We are very likely killing all life on earth right now, and it’s possible it will never recover.
Life will adapt and rebuild.
You assume it will get better when we stop burning fuel but many things dont just get better when you stop doing what is bad. A lot of things have a point of no return, where you can’t just undo all the damage that has been done
I’m not assuming, that assumption is rooted in science. I’m also not saying things will get better. What I am saying is that the climate will stabilize at whatever new normal there is with the amount of carbon in the carbon life cycle, that means whatever extremes exist at that point, will continue to exist.
mmmnope. Heard of the clathrate bomb?
There is a fuckton of methane locked in permafrost soils.
Once they start to melt, you get a chain reaction.
Methane is very potent, and will cause issues for sure. You’re absolutely right about that. But it also has a much shorter half life than carbon does, so it doesn’t have the same kind of long term effects as carbon does.
It has a much shorter half life but what does it degrade into?
Does science say when things will stabilise after we stop using coal and oil? I bet it’s not immediate. I bet it will take a lot longer than many think if not hundreds of years just to stabilise into something that maybe isn’t even liveable.
Yes, something like a hundred years or so before it stabilizes. I forget what the models are saying, bcz I don’t do climate science, my fiance does, so I usually ask her these queations.
Also though there are already products being made in carbon negative processes including sequestered jet fuel and various building materials. The cost (economic and ecological) of power generation has fallen dramatically and continues to do so while design tools continue to improve, this enables better and more ecologically’ sustainable infrastructure which will help increase the rate of transition to ecologically’ sustainable living.
We absolutely will be pulling significant amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere in twenty or thirty years from now, both from bio processing (algae to plastic for example) and direct capture.
It’s hard to guess what the world will look like in a hundred years but any model that assumes things will stop changing is just being silly.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of research on carbon sequestration, and I’ve not seen anything actually promising on it. We can’t rely on processes that aren’t in place, and aren’t proven to work to pin the hopes of our species, when the real solution is right in front of us. Stop burning fossil fuels
Have you now? A lot of research, and nothing promising?
Tell me about the things you’ve seen research on, like the closest to being promising but not thing that you’ve read research on…
Should be easy because you’re basically an expert in the tech, right?
I’m not am expert in it, my partner does research in climate adaptation, and there are people who do that research in her department. As far as I’ve heard, there isn’t anything that promising on the horizon. And I can’t stress this enough, we should not be relying on tech to try to save us when all we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels. It’s really that simple. But everybody wants business as usual, so we’re putting our hopes in pipedream technology that doesn’t exist hoping it will save us from ourselves. Seems pretty stupid to me.
Ha ok, changed a bit now hasn’t it? So you talk to your partner in depth about these subjects but can’t ask about it to help you answer the questions because of reasons…
What you actually mean is without doing any research you assumed something that fits with your preconceived dislike of technology solutions? Or maybe you just saw someone else say it so repeated it with a slightly exaggerated truthiness tone to and make it seem more believable.
Stop burning fossil fuels isn’t something we can just do over night, especially when people fight against good alternatives - and double especially when people fight against them based on knee jerk emotional response without really knowing much about it…
Carbon based efuels are going to be a huge part in the transition to an ecologically sustainable society, the model using sequestered carbon and renewable power generation is just one of several incredibly promising areas of chemistry at the moment.
Exactly, everybody thinks technology is going to save us from ourselves, and that’s why we are fucked.
And for the record, I didn’t ask my partner about any of this bcz she was out of town at a conference. Why would I bother her while she’s working to settle a dumb internet argument?
Of course she was.
And now we see the real emotion behind your desire to dismiss tech solutions.
It’s sad but I really think a lot of people would rather feel smug about the world burning than put out the fire.
I genuinely think a lot of the resistance to renewable adoption comes from people scarred that it’ll work. Modern chemistry is absolutely amazing, for some reason their successes upset people - you see it everywhere, did you go as far to reject the vaccine? That’s the same ‘it must be bad it’s science’ thinking.
The USAF have performed huge studies on SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) and have concluded they’re effective, reliable, and economically competitive - this isn’t some hippy idealism or scientific fanboyism it’s the cold calculated reality of the most advanced war machine in the world.
They already work, they tested them in all their engines and decided that an e-fuel made from sequestered carbon is the best solution - other saf have been used in transatlantic flights by commercial airlines for a while now, generally in a blended mix with kerosene but pure saf flights have been made.
It’s not common yet because we don’t have the infrastructure established to make them in significant quantities, this is changing with various facilities being built but it could change a lot quicker if there was a push to support transition technologies rather than a knee jerk anti science sentimentalism wrapped in fraudulent pretence of ‘but I read all the research…’ - this isn’t a flat earth, vaccines aren’t from the devil, and we’re not going to drop oil use without a viable replacement.
We need carbon sequestration, we need to support research into that rather than pretending to care about the plant as some form of dunk on progress. It’s just like the train line we tried to build in the UK, it would have cut down the ecological cost of cargo transport hugely and reduced the amount of lorries on the road significantly but eco warriors waged war on its construction attacking machinery, blocking it’s path with tunnels, and endless propaganda against it that got pushed by people who hate progress in any form.
And remember this is only one of the promising technologies, I don’t think it’s even the most promising tbh but its one of the easier to explain and is incredibly promising. You of course know know all this because of the regular in detail conversations you have about it with your double doctor scientist partner who has a very busy schedule.