61–69 of 69 posts
HN headline is very click-baity. Context: Collapse around the middle of the century or as soon as 2025. (That’s a big error bar.) (CNN) A vital system of ocean currents could collapse within a few decades if the world continues to pump out planet-heating pollution, scientists are warning – an event that would be catastrophic for global weather and “affect every person on the planet.” A new study published Tuesday in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> half the people still want to believe it isn't happening. The problem is twofold: on one side, you have those who think they can choose whether to believe in facts; on the other side, you have those who believe without understanding! As you said, we are past the return point. This is happening, and we should be doing something that actually addresses the problems caused by the ocean currents shutting down, but too…
I believe we can solve both problems if we would focus more on the scientific method and rational thinking. Improving the educational system is the only way we get there.
Let's imagine we stopped all C02 production tomorrow. How long it will take for climate to start going back to "sane" measurements?
It would take shorter than if we were to stop CO2 production at any later date. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is right now. Do what you can. Live sustainably. Vote righteously. Have consideration for the future.
So what's the plan to force China to cease being the world leader in CO2 emissions?
China's per person emissions are far lower than most industrialised countries. Qatar is at the top with almost 40 tons of CO2 per person per year.
So what's the plan to force China to cease being the world leader in CO2 emissions?
This is a silly comment. China's per person emissions are far lower than most industrialised countries. Qatar is at the top with almost 40 tons of CO2 per person per year.
China leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions, double that of the USA.
China, USA, and India contribute 42.6% total emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for 2.9%.
https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes...
So what's the plan to force China to cease being the world leader in CO2 emissions?
Sorry to post twice on this thread, but this concept gets so little relative attention, and to me, this is a huge and viable idea. And low cost. Sure you need to cover a lot of land but if this technique was applied to farm lands it cloud have a disproportionate carbon sink effect relative to things like direct air capture or carbon storage. Worth additional attention IMO. “Sprinkling basalt over soil could remove hu…
Am I misunderstanding something?
We emitted 37 billion tons in 2021.
This solution would offset 2.5 billion tons (~7%) of our annual emissions. And to do that we would need to put 5KG of basalt per square meter on 1/3 of all land available on earth. Isn't it completely crazy and unrealistic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only makes sense if the predictions are accurate and highly probable. Time unfortunately, has shown that these dire predictions are often wrong. There has been a good 20 years of climate hysteria to pull from. All one has to do is look at old newspapers and read the dire predictions from 2010 to have a good laugh at our sensational media.
First, it would be fortunate that dire predictions are often wrong. But they haven't been. Massive environmental predictions have been correct for decades (or feel free to provide examples).
To find environmental predictions that didn't happen try a google search for "Environmental Predictions that didn't happen", I promise you won't have to dig for results to find what you're looking for.
In the lists in various articles you'll find, notice that these predictions are often made by credentialed scientists from prestigious institutions, not an overhyped journalist making leaps from a scientific paper they don't understand.
One of biggest problem with the climate science is that it suffers from a selection bias. I think most people who go into that field already have their mind made up and their goal is to affirm their belief. And if they didn't, they'd be an unfunded nobody labeled a crackpot...as the skeptics/moderates often are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, it would be fortunate that dire predictions are often wrong. But they haven't been. Massive environmental predictions have been correct for decades (or feel free to provide examples).
Consider the fact that there are thousands of environmental predictions. Are some right? Of course, some are. Perhaps only due to the fact that some HAD to be right given a normal distribution of predictions. That could just be survivorship bias. IDK. To find environmental predictions that didn't happen try a google search for "Environmental Predictions that didn't happen", I promise you won't have to dig for results…
I won't do you research for you. Try to find some examples, and you'll find that the scientific community has been correct. Or prove me wrong!