61–70 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if anyone is researching this, but couldn't we manufacture stupidly large floating reflective tarps and start deploying them anywhere sea ice is melting? Seems like this would be a high benefit for relatively low cost.
I'd think they'd work better at the equator to reflect the most heat.
Another wild prediction. This person's wild claim is that if go on with the current path the ocean's will rise 7 meters and there will be worse storms. You can visit http://www.floodmap.net/ and see how 7 meters is nothing, even discounting that we can adapt and protect against flooding. Worse storms are bad, but if the alternative is "World War II-style transformation of industry", what alternative is that? How can…
Regardless, global warming will impact poorer (and tropical) countries disproportionately. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and I know it is a pretty good place to be as it warms up. Bangladesh, less so.
You can't expect Bangladesh to lead the decarbonation of industrial production - but the US can, and there are good arguments that it will yield an increase in wealth and standards of living.
So we can relax for three years before we have to do anything?
We don't do shit until it's already fucked millions of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the vast majority of the earths history has been without ice on the poles. Obviously this will force changes on humans no doubt. However, trying to shoehorn this natural fact into a political / carbon-credit trading scheme is deeply cynical that is apparent to most >100 IQ people.
> Because the vast majority of the earths history has been without ice on the poles. Yeah but the majority of human history has been with ice on the poles. We might have to reorganize a lot of things (agricultural practices, national borders, location of cities, ...) if that changes.
we've been doing that all along....
Does "no more permanent ice" means there is a period of the year where there is no ice at all at the poles? That seems hardly believable. I was also under the impression that melting ice would push the level of the oceans by multiple meters. If 75-80% of ice has already melted, wouldn't we have seen significant elevation already? Just some facts that I found surprising, coming from someone who doesn't know much on th…
The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…
Can you explain why people like you who come here to post "the world won't end in 4 years" consistently do not read the article, and consistently set the bar at "literally the oblate sphereoid we are on explodes" as opposed to "the climate is so radically different it threatens every aspect of human society and triggers even more mass extinctions?"
I don't understand your mentality at all. It seems an awful lot like you're meticulously moving the goalpost of a bad outcome. But surely you have got your own internal reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…
They aren't making that claim - they are saying that if we don't adjust things before 4 years we're going to have a problem. You're basically arguing that if you don't have skin cancer when you come in for the afternoon, it can't be the sun causing it.
This alarmism does nothing but alienate. We should be sticking to the science, not dramatizing.
I remember Al Gore saying we got 10 years in 2006. In fact this type of rhetoric has been going on for centuries. [1] [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/the-ever-receding-cli...
The loss of sea ice is stoking US heat waves: https://phys.org/news/2019-06-loss-arctic-sea-ice-stokes.htm... Intense heat is also predicted for Europe this summer: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/accuweather-2019... James Anderson, the scientist from the article, also has linked ozone depletion with climate change: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-ozone-prob...
I think his four years is too fast but I also don't think we can totally destroy the planet (aside from nuclear destruction). We know too much and have too much technology. Some (small?) fragment of civilization will survive while the earth recovers. For example, methane has a half life of seven years so it will take some time. The more immediate threat seems to be around food and water. The Ogallala Aquifer is dryin…
I remember Al Gore saying we got 10 years in 2006. In fact this type of rhetoric has been going on for centuries. [1] [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/the-ever-receding-cli...
That's the downside of boys crying wolf... when the actual wolf comes we don't listen.
The fact that people are looking at the world today and asking where's the problem is beyond belief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't making that claim - they are saying that if we don't adjust things before 4 years we're going to have a problem. You're basically arguing that if you don't have skin cancer when you come in for the afternoon, it can't be the sun causing it.
No, it's more like someone saying "the sun causes skin cancer, it's been proven. You've been exposed to the sun. You will get skin cancer unless you electively remove your entire skin with surgery. Trust me, I'm an expert." This alarmism does nothing but alienate. We should be sticking to the science, not dramatizing.