11–20 of 581 posts
X's threads make even less sense now unless you think everyone you want to reach is on X. Also, just what a dumb name.
You don't have to call it X.
The single letter "X" is brimming with symbolism and implications. Without further explanation we may never know why the rebranding was necessary.
Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…
X's threads make even less sense now unless you think everyone you want to reach is on X. Also, just what a dumb name.
I will continue calling them Twitter threads, since the domain is still twitter[dot]com.
Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…
X's threads make even less sense now unless you think everyone you want to reach is on X. Also, just what a dumb name.
Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…
Are you kidding me?
Activist climate scientists (like James Hansen) have warned for decades that IPCC reports are likely too conservative, because they represent broad consensus of climatologists.
Yet climate deniers continued to decry IPCC (also for decades) as too radical, political organization.
And now that the conservativism of IPCC is finally coming to public consciousness, you decide to side with the deniers, as if they were right all along?
I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…
Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?
Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…
Feedback loops like methane release are likely also hugely understated, as another practical example.
A large amount of this is due to political manipulation and pressure. Researchers are afraid of the way the issue has been politicized, and generally don't want to go out on a limb for fear of personal reputational damage or consequences to the field of study as a whole. Even just 15 years ago, in the 2000s, conservative-dominated media was begging for someone to step over the line so they could cancel them Dixie Chicks style and pronounce the entire field of study as discredited.
People spend way too much time on "but what if the models are overstating the problem" and they don't, actually they aren't even centered on the actual rate of increase, we pre-manipulated the model by building in all these stabilizing assumptions and even the pessimistic scenarios are actually quite optimistic. And then people apply additional optimistic "cheater factors" on top of that, and we still can't get to a situation in which the climate is not drastically deteriorated in a hundred years.
As I said, we have blasted through the most pessimistic assumptions on a yearly basis, the models are very clearly not aggressive enough about the temperature rises that are going to happen this century.
I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…
Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...
The thing is, this is not a one time solution. We would have to do it continuously, or else the temperature would quickly rise again. And we would have to increase sulphur injection if the CO2 level keeps rising. It could be a temporary solution though, e.g. until all countries switch to nuclear energy eventually and reduce CO2 emissions.
This is not surprising to me. It started years ago when scrubbers began to be installed on coal power plants and continued with low sulphur diesel requirements that started 15 years ago.