201–210 of 213 posts
Norway's sovereign wealth fund is over $1 trillion (with a T), which is all from petroleum profits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor... They should pledge at least 75% of that fund for CO2 removal technology R&D and other mitigation solutions.
Assuming that CO2 is the actual cause of global warming...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I liked it. Fight me.
The UX is discriminatory against visually impaired people. The layout genuinely hurts my eyes to read. I have vision problems and the continuous picture changes after every sentence is very uncomfortable to view. The contrast changes rapidly from bright to dark or completely black. Then there are light pictures with white text rendered over them. After the first few "slides" I had to close the article. It was too unc…
There is no lowest common denominator. Stop moralising.
I'm certainly on the climate change team (if that's what you call it). But are articles like this good or bad? When confronting climate change deniers the standard response is "weather is not climate". Saying it's hot today or cold today isn't an indication of climate change. It's what occurs over hundreds of years but especially the last 150 years. It seems we are sending mixed signals saying that one day or a decad…
> I'm certainly on the climate change team (if that's what you call it). But are articles like this good or bad? > When confronting climate change deniers... The article doesn't give me the impression that it's aimed at those wishing to support their arguments with climate-change deniers. I don't want to make assumptions about where in the world you're from, and I do acknowledge that climate-change denial is a seriou…
Thank goodness they have $1T to help Norway through this period of climate change from all of the oil they pumped that is causing the climate change. A lot of smaller island nations won't have that luxury.
I live in France next to the Alpes and climate change is really real here. Next week it's expecting to rain on the ski slopes. In the middle of February! Lots of glaciers are gone. Many of my mountain climbing friends say they can't do the runs they used to because the terrain is getting too unpredictable. It's quite scary.
The man in the article commenting that his father could no longer read the weather because the signs were wrong is my personal experience too - I've been tramping and hunting in a particular area of our Southern Alps since I was a child, and everything I learned about predicting the weather there when I was young doesn't work now. It used to be that autumn was the time of year with the most stable weather - lots of c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a more useful metric is per unit of GDP . ...because then it becomes an efficiency metric. "How much wealth can we create with X amount of CO2".
but then very poor countries will never be able to get to the development level of the rich countries because they’ll be energy limited. Buying a car (even if electric) could push them over the quota. Where as folks in the west can continue driving their giant SUVs.
The whole thing looks very gloomy to me.
What I have found more frustrating than those in denial of climate change lately, is those who deny responsibility. That the real problem is in other countries. India. China. America. Little old X in Europe can't possible be the ones that need to sort it out. Therefore there's no point changing our habits. I feel a little hopeless in these discussions. I have little hope for change. I cannot argue against the fact th…
They've been trying social efforts for quite a while now.
Are there other similar groups that try to educate and motivate the rest of the population ?
With enough of these groups, I believe most people will feel motivated, they just need a headstart to follow (we're too social).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing all those things is possible and there are clear plans to do them, at significant economical costs but nothing that our economies can't handle. This is the technological solution : transition out of oil and carbon in general! We already have I'd say 90% of the technological capability to achieve it and sufficient economic resources (in fact it's happening even without subsidies in many places). Europe is alread…
> Doing all those things is possible Renewables make up almost 0% of the total energy used by the world. Getting rid of fossil fuels or the fossil fuel industry is simply not possible. This is basic economics and physics. It's science. > in fact it's happening even without subsidies in many places Name one place where subsidies didn't prop up renewables. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home-sol...…
I am part of the science/engineering community. I also know oceanographers (personally), a handful of climate scientists (indirectly), several biologists from several fields, physicists, and more. People usually leave this stuff to specialists -- a physicist usually won't delve deep into climate science. Everyone I know that is informed (i.e. that doesn't say "I haven't looked at the climate data and projections") is deeply worried, and the oceanographer and climate scientists I know are the least hopeful (which should be worrying). Engineers generally just assume it's going to be fine for practical purposes -- I know a handful of civil engineers and electrical engineers working on large projects. The electrical engineer is informed on climate change and doesn't know how it will impact the project long term.
Just look at the data. It's the ethical thing to do, at least I believe. If you don't, we're both wasting our times.
Where to start?
I recommend simply reading the wikipedia article in its entirety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
paying special attention to this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Mitigation
Look at the emission pathway -- it demands massive, immediate action.
Also read this:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...
again pay attention to page 11:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...
again the emission targets. You can see if emissions keep increasing, i.e. pathways RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 are unlikely to keep warming under 3C (see table on page 13) -- likely to go to 4-5C of warming.
Finally, you can see some of the effects here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
(note that no emission reduction, i.e. RCP>6.0, >3C warming isn't given much attention, given it's quite apocalyptic)
and also here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_ecosystems#...
It's anyone's guess what would happen under this scenario, almost certainly mass extinction on ocean and land, the tropics become literally almost uninhabitable, effects on civilization anyone's guess in the range of catastrophe to collapse (imagine all of India and large parts of China trying to migrate).