71–80 of 581 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It came broken in the mail?
It broke many times throughout its history. There is just zero evidence that we cannot adjust, mitigate, prevent etc. - otherwise we might as well do nothing because we are all doomed anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the evidence for “observed evidence is that the unincluded positive forcings are significantly larger than the unincluded negative forcings”?
The fact that we're continually exceeding the most pessimistic projections the models can produce on a yearly basis, even after repeatedly recalibrating it to build in even more pessimistic assumptions, and that we're tending to depart more strongly from even the pessimistic models. This implies that the models are broadly understating these feedback loops, that they are net-balance in the positive-feedback direction…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? How are you equating a misinformation plot that at its core was promoting the lie that the climate wasn’t actually warming, but rather cooling with a web celeb alleging that models underestimated the amount amount of warming ? How are these even in the same galaxy, let alone the same thing?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. ClimateGate was about the quality of evidence for early global warming studies. It claimed that scientists were hiding bad data and evidence that their models had problems. This seems very similar: models missing data and forcing but not being criticised when they miss a once in a century confirmation event.
Literally no one promoting that bullshit believed that models were underreporting the effects and causes climate change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are people saying we should not just not stop, but even increase sulfur injection: 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 al…
The Earth's greatest temperature was before humans ever existed
It does sound like a relatively small change yielded an outsized impact on the climate. This gives me hope for future climate solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t disagree that there could be lots of other forcings/tipping points etc, but I hear lots of conjecture and don’t see the effect as much in actual predictions / models. I do disagree that if they are not included in our models, then we must be systemically underestimating warming. Why do you assume the missing effects will make the situation worse? If the model is missing positive forcings, what makes you so su…
> Why do you assume the missing effects will make the situation worse? > If the model is missing positive forcings, what makes you so sure that they have included all the negative forcings? I don't think they have included all the negative forcings, but I think that's irrelevant because the observed evidence is that the unincluded positive forcings are significantly larger than the unincluded negative forcings. All t…
Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships has reduced masking of global warming
The word 'cause' in current title seems wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are people saying we should not just not stop, but even increase sulfur injection: 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 al…
The Earth's greatest temperature was before humans ever existed
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 ?
The more necessary evils we depend on, the more things that can fail and further perturb the system.
Stopping now helps nudge us back towards the stable equilibrium we had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a bit out of the loop here, but is the letter "X" a part of Elon's company branding? Since that's not the first time he used the letter "X" in that manner. The single letter "X" is brimming with symbolism and implications. Without further explanation we may never know why the rebranding was necessary.
He made his fortune with x.com. That was the online bank he founded then merged with Confinity to become PayPal in 2000, and it was the PayPal IPO that allowed him to invest in Tesla and SpaceX. He's fond enough of his old company name that he bought the domain back years ago, and is now repurposing it.