31–40 of 89 posts
Climate aside, doesn't the increase of CO2 from 280PPM to 400PPM not have a substantial impact on the respiration of trees and animals? 42% increase of poison to animals has no meaningful impact?
Overall it's good for plants though this is more than offset by the downsides.
the people pushing the green new deal are doomsday Sayers predicting "crisis" in 12 years. they are more religious than some religious people about their science. however their 6000 scientists don't appear to look at satellite imagery, or choose not to: "The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: C…
> they are more religious than some religious people about their science. There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "12 years" figure comes from here: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/ > C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). This report came out in late 2018. As of the publishing of this report, in orde…
My prediction: In 2030 the people denying climate change now will say "Of course everyone believed in anthropogenic climate change! It was only some flat-earthers that denied it was happening. Don't blame us! We tried to do something but the lefties wouldn't let us build nuclear power. Its actually all their fault"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mentioned electric cars, but Bitcoin deserves much of the blame: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-e... >Bitcoin’s electricity usage is enormous. In November, the power consumed by the entire bitcoin network was estimated to be higher than that of the Republic of Ireland. Since then, its demands have only grown. It’s now on pace to use just over 42TWh of electricity in a year, placing it…
Currencies based on "hard cpu work" should be forbidden for that alone...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say at this point, "radical" is the key term here.
Pragmatically its more a return to old-style living in many ways but will seem radical to groups addicted to modern lifestyles.
It's super depressing to see the acceleration of coal energy in 2000. Despite the rise of renewables, they haven't even been able to keep up with the rise of coal! And the vast majority of it comes from energy production! Electric cars don't solve the problem if we are switching from high-efficiency gas engines to coal-fired electric.
Climate aside, doesn't the increase of CO2 from 280PPM to 400PPM not have a substantial impact on the respiration of trees and animals? 42% increase of poison to animals has no meaningful impact?
I'm not sure about other animals, but 400ppm is a long way away from toxic for humanity. Poorly ventilated indoor environments can easily hit 1200-1500ppm. You've got to hit 70,000 to 100,000 ppm before you start running the risk of coma and death. Interestingly some studies indicate that 1200ppm and higher might confer some mild cognitive impairment, even if it's a long way away from fatal. This has been used glibly…
the people pushing the green new deal are doomsday Sayers predicting "crisis" in 12 years. they are more religious than some religious people about their science. however their 6000 scientists don't appear to look at satellite imagery, or choose not to: "The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: C…
> they are more religious than some religious people about their science. There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.
also we are supposed to be "sceptics" in the science community but your scientists like to manipulate language for political reasons and call sceptics "deniers", a very religious move: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...
It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away resources from these other countries who are…
The Green New Deal ( at least in the USofA ) is a resolution, not a law or spending appropriation, and contains no action items. It’s a feel-good set of “Rah! Rah! We should do .” And as such, I do not see it moving the line at all.
Climate aside, doesn't the increase of CO2 from 280PPM to 400PPM not have a substantial impact on the respiration of trees and animals? 42% increase of poison to animals has no meaningful impact?
At 400 ppm CO2 is only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Increasing from 0.028% to 0.04% is a 42% increase, but 0.04% is too low to directly poison plants.
The climate change effects will be a problem long before plants and animals start getting poisoned by it.