61–70 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal is to not sit on or arses while we wait for people who already produce less CO2 than us to reduce their usage.
The real measure should be CO2 output per unit of GDP. We still need to make stuff, so if you're going to release CO2, it better be an efficient use of it.
Presumably you'll stop driving, give up home air con and electricity, never fly anywhere, etc. Because those things aren't related to your GDP production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Population(Billions): US 0.3 - 1.2 India CO2 emissions per capita(metric tons): US 16.4 - 1.6 India [0] I see numbers like this, and I am surprised that in 2016, in the face of evidence and danger, we still have arguments like I will not do anything because you didn't do enough according to me. Let it all burn down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Population(Billions): US 0.3 - 1.2 India CO2 emissions per capita(metric tons): US 16.4 - 1.6 India [0] I see numbers like this, and I am surprised that in 2016, in the face of evidence and danger, we still have arguments like I will not do anything because you didn't do enough according to me. Let it all burn down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.
Firstly, the number cited was ~10 times the CO2 output per capita, not ~16.
Secondly, it doesn't follow that GDP production in a primarily high tech, services, IP based economy should track the CO2 behavior of a different sort of economy. It's entirely possible that we're producing far and away more GDP and wasting CO2 production needlessly. (In fact, out GDP multiplier is 1.6 times higher than our CO2 multiplier, hinting that the two are at least partially decoupled.)
This says nothing about science, and a lot about what stories get people's attention.
There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion people in 2 country doing nothing. Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late. I say let it happen, it will propel us into a new era off innovation and environmental awareness. No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway .
China has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, they are also collaborating with nuclear power innovators, and building renewables. India is also building more nuclear and solar. Honestly, I wouldn't be worried about them, they are the superpowers of 21st century and will understand negative consequences of climate change to their era. I would be more worried about US & Europe - Germany is shutting down nuclear pla…
China has built huge numbers of hydroelectric dams, in fact this region is almost certainly the unmatched world center for hydroelectricity. It is also one of if not the most ancient center of large scale hydro-engineering, due to Dujiangyan.[0]
16 years ago when I arrived, there were very few such dams, and all at smaller scale, so the pace of change has been great. (IMHO Beijing has done an OK / not terrible job of balancing these energy/"national security" requirements with ecological protection efforts.) Also, foreigners are often unaware that e-bikes are the dominant form of personal transport throughout China already. In terms of long distance transport, China's ever-expanding railways (eg. permafost-floating railway to Tibet!) carry more freight than any other country's network, and they are lending assistance to neighboring countries (Laos, Myanmar) on similar hydro-electric and rail infrastructure projects.
Given these observations, I find it ridiculous to suggest that China is not doing its part. However, I do question the wisdom of allowing so many of its citizens to buy cars.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujiangyan_irrigation_system
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salt water is more dense than fresh water. Add fresh water and you decrease the density of seawater.
Loss of Land Ice (Not Sea Ice) = More Sea Level Rise SCHWEIGER: “Melting sea ice has no impact on sea level rise because it’s already floating in the ocean.” Like a glass of ice water. As it warms, the ice in the glass melts, but the total volume of water does not change. However, melting sea ice does contribute to climate change. That’s because white sea ice reflects the sun. So when it melts, the dark open ocean no…
What am I missing here? 0.6"/decade since 1900 would be 6.6" by 2015, and the article says sea level rose as much as 6.7" in the last century.
For the folks outside the USA, that is 14-17cm
"In terms of sea level changes, however, the study found the effects of melting are more drastically felt in regions farther from its source. According to InsideClimate News, melting sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere might raise water levels more in “the southern Pacific Ocean and equatorial regions.” With all due respect, but melting sea ice doesn't raise sea level. It's a scientific fact the author should check ca…
The author made a mistake by interchangeably using "sea ice" and "ice sheet ice". However, your correction itself isn't strictly correct. Melting sea ic can change sea levels by changing the density of the water in the ocean. Also, by melting it changes the amount of sunlight that is reflected. The increase in sunlight reaching the oceans will cause thermal expansion of the water.
Take two situations:
1. A mass of sea water is replaced by the same mass of fresh water. Sea levels/volume would increase as the average density would be lowered. (this is not the case)
2. A volume of fresh water is added to the ocean. Then V_total = V_ocean + V_freshwater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're trying. The left opposes it because it doesn't make government bigger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-opposition...
Meanwhile, the right can't even recognize it's a real issue. What do you think the bigger barrier is?