81–90 of 249 posts
I’d love to see the raw data.
Here's a raw table in .txt format from NASA https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_...
Whenever you hear a politician say "carbon neutral by 2050", interrupt them. The real goal is to avoid getting too far over 1.5 degrees warming. We need to avoid reaching tipping points that will cause non-recoverable damage to the earth system. The year 2050 is meaningless. Actual global average temperatures is what should be measured.
Is there a real practical solution to this? It seems like all proposed solutions in last 40 years are a drop in the ocean, or just a money grab scams. Only thing that really worked for such global scale is the ozone layer repair. Global warming/climate change I guess we should just accept it and adapt?
Look at the degrowth movement. There are solutions but nobody, especially the leadership, are going to like them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Petabytes of it around. Here's a small sunset: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/ Would you like more, or do you plan on analyzing the first few petabytes first?
I can't think of a single time in history that humanity responded to a threat in a fully coordinated manner. Maybe this is the first time, but the incentive stack from the individual voter all the way up to geopolitical grand strategy argues against it. Trying to tell poor nations to remain poor -- or telling rich nations to consume less -- is a losing game. There's evidence that as societies get richer, their popula…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Petabytes of it around. Here's a small sunset: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/ Would you like more, or do you plan on analyzing the first few petabytes first?
He means the original recordings. There were no digital recordings in 1880. Different apparatus, different methods. That’s the point
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m amused that the argument is that we are in a Mr Burns position where different kinds of pollution we were emitting was balancing out and somehow fighting pollution is the reason global warming is worse? While I’m sure it has some effect, the amount of co2 we pump out every year as a species is insane. The effect of ship pollution mitigating that is marginal at best
Stratospheric aerosol injection is the leading geoengineering proposal for a reason. If you have well-supported reasons to be skeptical, you should share it, but just saying "idk doesn't sound right to me" isn't convincing.
Can you imagine an extant tech that can come close to doing that at the required scale? I can’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Petabytes of it around. Here's a small sunset: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/ Would you like more, or do you plan on analyzing the first few petabytes first?
He means the original recordings. There were no digital recordings in 1880. Different apparatus, different methods. That’s the point
Is there a real practical solution to this? It seems like all proposed solutions in last 40 years are a drop in the ocean, or just a money grab scams. Only thing that really worked for such global scale is the ozone layer repair. Global warming/climate change I guess we should just accept it and adapt?
What about poor people that live in areas in the world that will become completely uninhabitable?
Is there a real practical solution to this? It seems like all proposed solutions in last 40 years are a drop in the ocean, or just a money grab scams. Only thing that really worked for such global scale is the ozone layer repair. Global warming/climate change I guess we should just accept it and adapt?
What about poor people that live in areas in the world that will become completely uninhabitable?