6 ms·

Thwaites mass loss rate is 500% what it was in 1990. 500%, that is 2026 study. It is accelerating very rapidly as well. I don’t give a damn, to be perfectly ho

Thwaites mass loss rate is 500% what it was in 1990. 500%, that is 2026 study. It is accelerating very rapidly as well. I don’t give a damn, to be perfectly honest, what some sign posted god knows when with who knows what information, says. This is a man made global catastrophe. Information and research is very clear and very robust. Ice loss in just 202x, from JUST thwaites, contributes to several centimeters of ocean rise. It’s going to be much much higher in 203x and 204x. It’s just one (unusually big) glacier of many. We can all sit here and Reee Reee about the things that were overly reductive, overstated, wrong, even a lie. What I wrote above this is none of those and it’s actually psychotic how little we talk about the cryosphere collapse, given how badly it’s going to fuck us, not 1000 years from now, not 100 years from now, but 10 years from now. I played a video game twice that age on my computer yesterday.

dnautics 1mo ago
well theres a subset of countries that are reducing their emissions and a subset of countries that are not. perhaps we should punish the countries that are not.
- xscott 1mo ago
  You're going to punish Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Congo?!? I don't think that will help: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by... Maybe you'll suggest changing that to be per capita? Punishing Palau, Qatar, and Kuwait?
  - dnautics 1mo ago
    just punish countries a fixed amount per kg yoy increase. small countries will (probably) not be punished much in case they had overage
- robocat 1mo ago
  The US is the historical global leader of CO2 emissions, so start there. You think we should punish countries because they should be cleaning up the CO2 generated by other countries?
  - dnautics 1mo ago
    no, we should actually put some teeth into this idea that this is a global problem and make everyone do their part. the us is dramatically reducing its co2 footprint. the us currently is emitting per capita roughly what it emitted oer capita in 1910 if you didn't know this then its a pity your information sources are not telling you this.
    - defrost 1mo ago
      How about the US consumption footprint? Offshoring all the manufacturing and raw material processing elsewhere was convenient for claiming to create less CO2 discharge within the US - but is the US willing to forego all those shiny things that were created with offshore CO2 emission?
      - dnautics 1mo ago
        nope. trade corrected us co is down considerably too. biggest contributor is that there was a flippening the us biggest trading partners shifted back to canada and mexico from china, under trump 1 iirc, which are way less bad emitters than china, and moving goods from those two countries incurs less co2 footprint for obvious reasons.
    - robocat 1mo ago
      The pool is full of shit, and you are trying to argue that the US shitting into the pool like it first started back in 1910 is okay? Rich (developed) countries created the CO2. Marginal arguments that poor countries need to do their bit is insulting. Most poor countries have never been able to afford to burn much oil and if us rich countries want them to change behaviours, we should be paying them to help clean up our mess. Coal matters too. Methane is a temporary plaster over the main issue.
colpabar 1mo ago
> I don’t give a damn, to be perfectly honest, what some sign posted god knows when with who knows what information, says. This is a man made global catastrophe. Information and research is very clear and very robust. It's great that you are smarter than everyone else, but if you want policy to change in democratic countries, you need to convince people to vote for politicians who will enact said policy changes. You have to convince people, not make them feel stupid. I would argue that the way you are engaging with the parent comment is actually working against your desired outcome, and I really wish people would realize that and stop all the annoying scolding. You aren't helping! > it’s actually psychotic how little we talk about the cryosphere collapse Why would anyone want to talk about this if you are just going to yell at them? I know it seems silly and it is probably very frustrating, but nothing is going to change unless you get the votes to change it.

dnautics 1mo ago

well theres a subset of countries that are reducing their emissions and a subset of countries that are not. perhaps we should punish the countries that are not.

xscott 1mo ago
You're going to punish Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Congo?!? I don't think that will help: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by... Maybe you'll suggest changing that to be per capita? Punishing Palau, Qatar, and Kuwait?
- dnautics 1mo ago
  just punish countries a fixed amount per kg yoy increase. small countries will (probably) not be punished much in case they had overage
robocat 1mo ago
The US is the historical global leader of CO2 emissions, so start there. You think we should punish countries because they should be cleaning up the CO2 generated by other countries?
- dnautics 1mo ago
  no, we should actually put some teeth into this idea that this is a global problem and make everyone do their part. the us is dramatically reducing its co2 footprint. the us currently is emitting per capita roughly what it emitted oer capita in 1910 if you didn't know this then its a pity your information sources are not telling you this.
  - defrost 1mo ago
    How about the US consumption footprint? Offshoring all the manufacturing and raw material processing elsewhere was convenient for claiming to create less CO2 discharge within the US - but is the US willing to forego all those shiny things that were created with offshore CO2 emission?
    - dnautics 1mo ago
      nope. trade corrected us co is down considerably too. biggest contributor is that there was a flippening the us biggest trading partners shifted back to canada and mexico from china, under trump 1 iirc, which are way less bad emitters than china, and moving goods from those two countries incurs less co2 footprint for obvious reasons.
  - robocat 1mo ago
    The pool is full of shit, and you are trying to argue that the US shitting into the pool like it first started back in 1910 is okay? Rich (developed) countries created the CO2. Marginal arguments that poor countries need to do their bit is insulting. Most poor countries have never been able to afford to burn much oil and if us rich countries want them to change behaviours, we should be paying them to help clean up our mess. Coal matters too. Methane is a temporary plaster over the main issue.

colpabar 1mo ago

> I don’t give a damn, to be perfectly honest, what some sign posted god knows when with who knows what information, says. This is a man made global catastrophe. Information and research is very clear and very robust. It's great that you are smarter than everyone else, but if you want policy to change in democratic countries, you need to convince people to vote for politicians who will enact said policy changes. You have to convince people, not make them feel stupid. I would argue that the way you are engaging with the parent comment is actually working against your desired outcome, and I really wish people would realize that and stop all the annoying scolding. You aren't helping! > it’s actually psychotic how little we talk about the cryosphere collapse Why would anyone want to talk about this if you are just going to yell at them? I know it seems silly and it is probably very frustrating, but nothing is going to change unless you get the votes to change it.