www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00126-0
The Importance of Distinguishing Climate Science from Climate Activism
An issue is that activists are often hide bound to certain solutions, and ignore others, nuclear power is a prime example of this, there's a lot of "perfect being the enemy of good".
lol, pretty weird take from someone who thinks the greenhouse effect isn't real and that the IGL explains increasing global temperatures, but okay.
that the IGL explains increasing global temperatures
Nobody has ever claimed that. This demonstrates you don't have any clue what you're talking about.
Many climate scientists have been working in field for years or decades and have been on the front line documenting things like the loss of glaciers, arctic sea ice, permafrost, and coral reefs, watching as the things they dedicated a life to studying disappear. And they have seen that decades of sober, detached, dispassionate publishing of scientific facts have done little to move the world toward action.
Scientists are human. Is it any surprise that under these conditions some of them would be moved to activism?
Scientists are workers whose job it is, day after day, to ask questions.
But they are also human beings with families and futures, who have a stake in the outcome, what humanity does or doesn't decide to do in the wake of its own "success" in shaping the planet.
Myself I could stand to hear less about the chemistry and physics of solar flux, and more about the psychology of finite games like carbon choices.
To hear the news reports, you might think we need to wait until things are intolerable before making any decisive choices. Posts like this don't help.
- Denial
- Bargaining
- Anger <— they are here
- Depression
- Acceptance
We all have a path to follow to get to acceptance that our world is about to change drastically.
This one is a good read. My take: Calm down everybody. The truth lies somewhere in the uncertainty. Don’t bet the farm just yet on plan X.
Calm is likely a function of your estimated expiration date and level of indifference to the suffering of others, including your direct/indirect descendents.
My favorites are the old folks who loudly claim there's nothing to see here - knowing they will cross the river styx before anything happens.
I'm maybe 15-20 years from eternity which I reckon is just long enough to see the "Calm down" crew realize how stupidly wrong they are.
The Berkeley Earth crew have it right. We first crossed the 1.5 threshold in 2023. By the mid thirties, we will be firmly north of 1.5. There is uncertainty - for sure - but it's on the far side of tipping points.
I find your conclusion hardly surprising. After all, you posted what can only generously referred to as a "paper" in this sub a while ago claiming that the CO2 effect is "saturated", despite a vast weight of evidence to the contrary. Deniers are gonna deny I guess.
So you didn’t agree that CO2 is already at a sufficient concentration to capture all the IR emitted from the Earth’s surface that CO2 can capture. Fair enough, the scientists themselves are debating this. What does CO2 saturation have to do with distinguishing science from activism? That’s what the referenced article is about. Did you read it? Do you have anything to add on the interplay between science and activism?
So you didn’t agree that CO2 is already at a sufficient concentration to capture all the IR emitted from the Earth’s surface that CO2 can capture
No, because it's not supported by evidence.
Fair enough, the scientists themselves are debating this
No they're not.
What does CO2 saturation have to do with distinguishing science from activism?
When you hold unscientific views like you do you can justify saying "calm down". Scientists are fed up with a lack of action, despite their warnings. I share their frustration. We're simply not doing enough.
Not supported by evidence. That is funny. The science behind the adsorption of electromagnetic frequency is well known in the study of molecular behavior. It’s a fundamental element of analytical chemistry. You can’t have the green house gas effect without it. I believe we both agree, as do millions of others, the green house effect exists. The fact that we have the green house effect brings adsorption squarely in play for a saturation calculation. The debate is only at what CO2 concentration is needed for saturation to be declared. Adsorption, whether at the atomic or molecular level, is linear with the log of concentration. Declaring what constitutes a saturation state is a diminishing arena for debate. Is it 95% of the incident light? How about 99%? Maybe as high as 99.999%? At these levels additional CO2 very quickly becomes insignificant. Adsorption science is well known and the math is pretty simple. The only argument would then be: What is the new average equilibrium temperature of the Earth. That’s where the article on CO2 saturation leads us. Unless you don’t believe a saturated state of CO2, with respect to IR radiation, is a possible state in our atmosphere.
Deniers are gonna deny I guess.
3 Physicists Use Experimental Evidence To Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturated
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere can have no significant climatic effect when rising above the threshold of about 300 ppm. Due to saturation, higher and higher concentrations do not lead to any further absorption of radiation.
"Good read" my arse.
My take: Calm down everybody.
This makes you, and Ulf Büntgen a climate denier. Welcome to the Club!
5 missing replies
Ugh. This is less than useless.
Most scientists and climate activists will agree that science should not have pre-determined outcomes and should not be confused with activism.
The problem is that we continue to fail to make substantial progress on decarbonization, and public perception is that scientists prevaricate. What we need is public support for sustained policy intervention that focuses on the least-harm possibilities based on the knowledge we have right now. The author doesn't say, "Wait for better science before doing anything," but it's all too easy for deniers to read it that way.
Indifference or inaction due to the overwhelming scale of the challenge is a real problem, but being pedantic about separating science from activism isn't the low-hanging fruit that needs to be tackled.
Doing little (or nothing) is not the course of least harm, with the best knowledge we have now. The scientists and economists figuring out the details need to avoid pre-determining their conclusions. But for the public and policymakers, we are well past the point of pontificating about scientific purity. We need action.
So I'll firmly side with the activist and wish the ivory tower godspeed in figuring out the details. Hopefully, before too many more billions (or trillions) in damage and thousands (or millions) of lives lost.