Global Warming: The actual charts

Lacius · Jul 16, 2019

Hanafuda said:
I agree. It's unreasonable.

Then your argument dies here. Instead, let's focus on real solutions to the systemic problem that is human-caused climate change.

Hanafuda said:
I didn't just mean stop using the internet though - all unnecessary energy use. Automobiles, electric heating, air conditioning, all recreational computer use, etc.

These aren't solutions to the issue of climate change.
They don't address the systemic causes of climate change.
These things aren't unnecessary in a modern world.

Hanafuda said:
Whether it is suggested to apply to only a select group (all climate change believers) or all of human society, I agree. It's unreasonable.

Then your argument is pointless.

Hanafuda said:
Because Leonardo DiCaprio flies from Cannes to Manhattan by private jet to receive an environmentalist award, then flies right back to France the next morning.

I'm not Leonardo DiCaprio, and most climate change advocates don't own private jets. Not flying in a private jet also doesn't address the systemic causes of climate change.

Hanafuda said:
Nobody championing the cause acts like they really believe it. So like I said in the first place, looks like a whole lot of hypocrisy. You want to convince people? Walk the walk.

I really believe it, and any argument about my computer usage is going to be just as bad as an argument against every second I don't commit suicide in the name of carbon emissions.

Ratatattat · Jul 16, 2019

Hanafuda said:
I agree. It's unreasonable. I didn't just mean stop using the internet though - all unnecessary energy use. Automobiles, electric heating, air conditioning, all recreational computer use, etc. Whether it is suggested to apply to only a select group (all climate change believers) or all of human society, I agree. It's unreasonable. And it will never happen, no matter how much hand wringing is done over it. Because Leonardo DiCaprio flies from Cannes to Manhattan by private jet to receive an environmentalist award, then flies right back to France the next morning. Nobody championing the cause acts like they really believe it. So like I said in the first place, looks like a whole lot of hypocrisy. You want to convince people? Walk the walk.

Again you argument is unreasonable just like your stance on Global Warming. I guess I could be just as unreasonable and suggest that you place your nose in an automobile tailpipe and enjoy the atmosphere.

ChaosEternal · Jul 16, 2019

No system exists in a vacuum. It only exists because we perpetuate it. If everyone collectively decided to live as Hanafuda suggested, then things would begin to change. That's almost certainly not the easiest solution given our natural aversion to hardship, but I see no reason it wouldn't work if it were somehow logically carried out.

Ratatattat · Jul 16, 2019

ChaosEternal said:
No system exists in a vacuum. It only exists because we perpetuate it. If everyone collectively decided to live as Hanafuda suggested, then things would begin to change. That's almost certainly not the easiest solution given our natural aversion to hardship, but I see no reason it wouldn't work if it were somehow logically carried out.

Its the anti global warmers you'll have trouble convincing. There in lies the problem.

ghjfdtg · Jul 16, 2019

Stopping to use electricity and computers is not an option but you know what is an option? Stopping to buy a god damn new phone every year like some people do. It makes much more sense to start with the biggest causes than nitpicky things like electricity. The industry is by far the biggest cause and we support it by buying things we don't need or are very inefficiently made. The system won't change on it's own that's right.

ChaosEternal · Jul 16, 2019

Ratatattat said:
Its the anti global warmers you'll have trouble convincing. There in lies the problem.

Oh yeah, I don't believe it's at all plausible to actually convince enough people to start living as we did pre 1800s to make a difference in that way. All I'm saying is that if you somehow did, it would probably work. Perhaps that's ultimately a meaningless distinction.

notimp · Jul 16, 2019

Here is maybe the key to the issue.

Inducing economical abstinence into capitalism - kinda seems like a hard sell. Thats the heart of the issue.

Then usually the argument "but capitalism also kind of seems to be a religion" comes into play - but then - its still kind of a better one that kind of works.

So - and because nobody wants to meddle with capitalism - we get all kinds of PR innitiatives that seem to have said - lets meddle with peoples motivations instead. And thats all kinds of odd.

In that scenario I have issues with unforseen, or rebound effects. But if it works, hey...

Its just that for the heck of it I can not imagine, that it would work. I mean - it works as long as the majority of your society are old folks that are more oriented in the direction of heaven -

- but to have a "moral" guiding system, that tells people, that they shoudl work harder on consuming less - so they will have it better in heaven (sorry - so that their children will have it better on earth). Kind of should not be possible to work.

Even if you get virtual Susy Goodschoes points, that you could exchange for some non (psysically) existing good, that you get sold in virtual economies.

Lacius · Jul 16, 2019

ChaosEternal said:
No system exists in a vacuum. It only exists because we perpetuate it. If everyone collectively decided to live as Hanafuda suggested, then things would begin to change. That's almost certainly not the easiest solution given our natural aversion to hardship, but I see no reason it wouldn't work if it were somehow logically carried out.

It's not a reasonable solution, and it also doesn't address the systemic causes.

ChaosEternal · Jul 16, 2019

[Removed]

Lacius · Jul 16, 2019

ChaosEternal said:
As I admitted it's not reasonable, no, but I fail to see how it wouldn't correct the systemic issues. After all, you can't have systemic issues without a system. Unless you mean runaway effects that would continue to self-perpetuate even absent continued human intervention.

Much of the world would still be using fossil fuels, and the effect is cumulative. Ignoring the fact that asking half the population not to use electricity is unreasonable, it's not a solution either.

notimp · Jul 16, 2019

We can make it a little more complex, and could say, that societies kind of work because you 'attach' earning money to 'productivity'. (That way you make sure, that inflation doesnt spike through the roof.) But now the call off the hour seems to be 'less productivity'.

Which doesnt work.

I'm so baffled by it..

ChaosEternal · Jul 16, 2019

Lacius said:
Much of the world would still be using fossil fuels, and the effect is cumulative. Ignoring the fact that asking half the population not to use electricity is unreasonable, it's not a solution either.

Oh, I was speaking of the event where the whole of humanity collectively decided to act, not just half of the population. Really though, I'm just quibbling over semantics. Barring some sort of global armageddon, such an event is vanishingly unlikely to occur. The possibility that this very forum thread somehow prompts global leaders to act is likely far more probable than humanity collectively deciding to start living a pre-1800's lifestyle.

Lacius · Jul 16, 2019

ChaosEternal said:
Oh, I was speaking of the event where the whole of humanity collectively decided to act, not just half of the population. Really though, I'm just quibbling over semantics. Barring some sort of global armageddon, such an event is vanishingly unlikely to occur. The possibility that this very forum thread somehow prompts global leaders to act is likely far more probable than humanity collectively deciding to start living a pre-1800's lifestyle.

If we are talking about a scenario where we can get the whole of humanity to act, there's no reason to go the route of ending all electricity usage. There are better options.

ChaosEternal · Jul 16, 2019

[Removed]

dAVID_ · Jul 16, 2019

Here is the chart that ends at the year 2000, from the NASA website mentioned by @osaka35.
This is much more representative than the first one, which ends at year 0.

Ratatattat · Jul 16, 2019

The truth is the Earth will recover and the cockroaches won't give a damn once the offender is out of the way. We seem to pride ourselves on our intelligence, but the dinosaurs ruled the Earth for over 200 million years, so it would seem (perceived) intelligence may not be after all a good survival technique.

Lacius · Jul 16, 2019

Ratatattat said:
The truth is the Earth will recover and the cockroaches won't give a damn once the offender is out of the way. We seem to pride ourselves on our intelligence, but the dinosaurs ruled the Earth for over 200 million years, so it would seem (perceived) intelligence may not be after all a good survival technique.

Will life on Earth survive? Probably. However, the Permian-Triassic extinction event was caused in part by the natural release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and approximately 90% of all species went extinct. Also, the release of carbon dioxide was much slower then than it is now.

So, even though life on Earth might survive, a lot of species could still go extinct. I should also point out that there's a good example of a runaway greenhouse effect in our solar system: Venus. As far as we know, Venus is inhospitable to life now despite it once being very Earth-like.

Glyptofane · Jul 16, 2019

I tend to see climate change as a hoax, but this planet does have a serious and undeniable problem with trash, specifically disposable plastic containers. This can't be eliminated completely, but I feel like it could be greatly reduced with some effort to market reusable containers with fill stations for common products like we already see with water. Plastic water bottles are still a huge problem though, so it would almost have to be government enforced in order to succeed.

Lacius · Jul 16, 2019

Glyptofane said:
I tend to see climate change as a hoax, but this planet does have a serious and undeniable problem with trash, specifically disposable plastic containers. This can't be eliminated completely, but I feel like it could be greatly reduced with some effort to market reusable containers with fill stations for common products like we already see with water. Plastic water bottles are still a huge problem though, so it would almost have to be government enforced in order to succeed.

Climate change is not a hoax. Rising temperatures are correlated with increased greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, and we are dramatically increasing the carbon dioxide levels by burning fossil fuels. Climate change is real, it has been proven to be true, and it's a serious issue. Educate yourself.

Edit: Plastics are also a big issue.

Ratatattat · Jul 16, 2019

Lacius said:
Climate change is not a hoax. Rising temperatures are correlated with increased greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, and we are dramatically increasing the carbon dioxide levels by burning fossil fuels. Climate change is real, it has been proven to be true, and it's a serious issue. Educate yourself.

Edit: Plastics are also a big issue.

Lets just put aside climate change for the moment. Why is it that all the toxic pollution introduced to our atmosphere on a daily basis, does not seem to create concern of its own? Obviously that is largely man made. Is it out of sight out of mind?

Global Warming: The actual charts

Am I an uncaring moron?

Yes

Yes but the bottom option

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum