101–110 of 591 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and there’s a lag effect so the temperature will still increase for years after that. However, to be clear, it’s unlikely we get to net zero in 27 years. We haven’t reached any of our goals so far and the goals only get more difficult
Yes. Humanity we are not in good shape.
- "By 06:00 UTC on September 8, Lee's maximum sustained winds reached 165 mph (270 km/h), an increase of 85 mph (140 km/h) in 24 hours, making it the third‑fastest intensifying Atlantic hurricane on record, behind only Felix and Wilma.[12]"
It's odd how everytime somebody mentions slashing oil production by 50 or 75%, people are immediately up in arms. Same for red meat or cheap air travel. Western rich countries have too many really spoiled consumers. It's weird to say, but we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change. I mean there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, at this point I'm beyond caring much what stuff sounds like "to a skeptic". The past 15 or so years have proven to me that "skeptics" can believe whatever TF they want, all logic and and reason be damned, as long as there is a snazzy YouTube video pointing out how it's all a CoNSp1RacY by the Secret Global Elite. I'm done with trying to convince people who have made it extremely adamant that they aren't wil…
Sure, there are some people who are not persuadable no matter what. But there are other people who are not crazy but who see stuff like this and have legitimate doubts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think humans are one of those species, as they cannot survive wet bulb over 95f nor can current populations survive across the collapse of agriculture, hence the problem
Yeah, it is a mistake to worry about the earth in regards to climate change. It will be fine. Biodiversity may in fact increase after the bottleneck. Humans though, or at least human civilization...
At what stages do fishing and agriculture end? When do our brains overheat? Etc.
In the short term, we're possibly going to have an even better time of sustaining human life and society (see my other comments' sources). Until things progress even further and we severely damage our civilization and possibly kill ourselves off.
What are the things we can do to cope, what are the things we can do to slow or reverse the temperature trend, and what ranges do these things happen?
Can we stop? How? Where should we stop? Should we return back to where we were? Or should we keep going further and then stop? At some point this becomes a biogeoengineering problem.
I have so many questions.
It's odd how everytime somebody mentions slashing oil production by 50 or 75%, people are immediately up in arms. Same for red meat or cheap air travel. Western rich countries have too many really spoiled consumers. It's weird to say, but we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change. I mean there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's no…
2. Crashing the economy may make things worse as people may move to cheaper more polluting options.
3. Also any crashing has to be global if implemented. If the West implements this, will China implement it too? Otherwise, it is useless.
4. We have to get out of the outdated/silly notion that the economy is inversely proportional to a clean planet. E.g., cleaner cars cost more than older polluting cars. So if more cleaner cars are bought, that implies economic growth as well as less pollution. Same for building mass transit. There will be a ton of upfront pollution.
The chart is from 1991 to 2023 by the looks of the article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The effects of SO2 to the stratosphere are well known and understood, because volcanoes occasionally do just that. Without asking for permission.
In the same volumes and in the same way as we would be doing it?
It's odd how everytime somebody mentions slashing oil production by 50 or 75%, people are immediately up in arms. Same for red meat or cheap air travel. Western rich countries have too many really spoiled consumers. It's weird to say, but we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change. I mean there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's no…
And what about all the countries that won’t do anything regardless? So we should just tank our own economy while being unable to do anything about our neighbors? It won’t take tanking the economy, it would take world war 3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, there are some people who are not persuadable no matter what. But there are other people who are not crazy but who see stuff like this and have legitimate doubts.
I’d like to know more about the legitimate doubts. I haven’t heard a solid argument yet. Of the arguments I’ve heard though, the speaker had had low scientific literacy and misunderstandings of the scientific process and the data. They were perturbed by media, mainly. So, I’d like to hear someone serious address the issue.
Not everyone is a scientist or an engineer. You don't have to be an idiot to read the above statements and have your main takeaway be "they don't know for sure so they guessed" and it's completely reasonable to still have doubts based on that.