32 sats \ 16 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Jun \ parent \ on: Banning Fossil Fuels Will Make Heat Waves More Dangerous, Not Less econ
I don’t consider CO2 to be dangerous, so it’s not hard for something to be more dangerous.
The problem I associate with HFCs is ozone depletion. I haven’t heard them discussed as significant greenhouse gases before.
I also don't consider CO2 as problem if we can plant our planet the same as 100 years ago..
HFCs for ozone depletion was a fluke so there's no discussion about it at all.
The most commonly found hydrofluorocarbon is 3,790 times more damaging than carbon dioxide (when spread over a 20 year period).
reply
I’m extremely skeptical of these sorts of statements. “Social cost” calculations usually combine highly dubious science with completely nonsensical economics.
That said, if it’s toxic at all, then it is vastly more dangerous than CO2.
reply
reply
“1430x damaging to climate” is meaningless. I know how they come up with those numbers and it’s nowhere near as precise or scientific as they make it seem.
Out of curiosity, what do you think “damaging to climate” means?
reply
I don't believe in these type of bullshit propaganda. What I believe is what I can practically sense. And I don't know exactly but 'climate change' is real. Before 30 years and now a huge difference! This difference is visible in rising temperatures. So, anything that's causing it is a possible damage to climate.
The , there's a big thinking back in my mind. 'Man is not as big as Nature.' Nature can easily overturn any bad impact in so less time!
So, instead of stop complaining for chemistry, we must focus on reforestation.
More than anything, deforestation has caused this rise in temperatures. This is what I actually believe.
However, I've been running a little local community that does some awareness campaigns for 'the importance of trees', I read and consume a lot of media related to 'climate change'.
reply
So, what could "1430x climate damage" reasonably mean? Note that it isn't just "climate change".
There are basically two methods used to create these numbers:
- Someone creates a score, that has no inherent meaning, based on a bunch of different properties. In that case, the precise values aren't meaningful, but higher and lower can be useful for categorizing different compounds.
- A climate model with very large known flaws and wide standard errors is used to create an estimate that is then fed into an economic model that is known to be severely flawed. The reported number in this case is the estimated economic damage, but the confidence intervals are so large that you can't rule out that there's no effect.
reply
Climate change models have too many variables that inflate correlation. The curse of multidimensional
I am more worried about asteroids and volcanoes
reply
Regarding deforestation, one problem with trees is excessive water consumption which hurts dry regions and areas affected by drought
reply
This is so 1980s
reply
You're right. What do you think of rising temperatures globally? How can we combat it? Do we really need to worry or let everything as it is?
reply
We don’t need to worry about rising temperatures
Without rising temperatures we would still be stuck in the ice age
We can’t combat or control Mother Nature
Why are rising temperatures harmful? Are cooling temperatures better for humans?
Are temperatures rising in Africa or near the equator?
Singapore 🇸🇬 is always hot , before and after global warming.
Let’s assume climate change is a crisis. What is the worst case scenario? The planet gradually melts? No oceans and rivers? The planet will explode like popcorn 🍿 in a microwave?
reply
My views are same as yours except for so much slashing of trees. So, what do you say? we shouldn't even worry about excess deforestation?
reply
One factor to consider is forest fires and wildfire
California has suffered from terrible wildfires since inception. The fires from the last 10 years is due to mismanagement.
I support deforestation if it prevents wildfires from spreading and burning people homes
If trees are old and dying shouldn’t they be chopped down so we can plant new trees 🌲?
reply
Yes, I agree. Cutting down decaying trees is worth but when I look back last 100 years, it was too much.
While half of Earth's loss of forests occurred from 10,000 years ago to 1900, the other half or 1.1 billion hectares have been lost since 1900.
reply
Who is responsible for deforestation?
Who are the primary actors?
reply
I can't say definitely. It may be everyone as it had to be due to sudden rise in demands for our population grew at an incredible pace.