71–80 of 247 posts
What am I missing here? 0.6"/decade since 1900 would be 6.6" by 2015, and the article says sea level rose as much as 6.7" in the last century.
The important thing is that 6.7 is more than ten times bigger than 0.6. Clearly you can safely ignore the words decade and century because they're words and not numbers.
I suspect that we can expect a lot of bad news to emerge over the next few decades, as the promise of climate change becomes the reality of climate change.
What am I missing here? 0.6"/decade since 1900 would be 6.6" by 2015, and the article says sea level rose as much as 6.7" in the last century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change. It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for climate change are going to disprop…
which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change Have an example? I thought it was a war in Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-...
Have you noticed how you hear about 100 reports about how things may be worse than we though, for each report about the opposite? This says nothing about science, and a lot about what stories get people's attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, the right can't even recognize it's a real issue. What do you think the bigger barrier is?
It is worse when the people who know they should act choose not to.
If we don't bring the right along then they'll either block any action (America) or create a huge fear campaign and repeal the action (Australia).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.
I... uh. Firstly, the number cited was ~10 times the CO2 output per capita, not ~16. Secondly, it doesn't follow that GDP production in a primarily high tech, services, IP based economy should track the CO2 behavior of a different sort of economy. It's entirely possible that we're producing far and away more GDP and wasting CO2 production needlessly. (In fact, out GDP multiplier is 1.6 times higher than our CO2 multi…
Google tells me 6.7M people work in tech out of 127M people with a full time job. Roughly 4%? Sure, the GDP per worker is higher, but suffice to say most of the GDP output of the US isn't due to sexy new low CO2 jobs.
Edit: Tech is ~7% of US GDP.
I suspect that we can expect a lot of bad news to emerge over the next few decades, as the promise of climate change becomes the reality of climate change.
On the other hand, people have been saying that for last few decades, and the bad news hasn't had much impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're trying. The left opposes it because it doesn't make government bigger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-opposition...
I'm not ideologically in favor of smaller or bigger government. I want smarter government, and there's nothing smart about passing legislation that will reduce the state government's revenue by between $80 and $900 million a year without defining what services to cut. Also, "bigger government" is a vague enough definition that it could easily apply to this initiative. It creates a new category of tax, and a new categ…