831–840 of 1001 posts
Let’s not pretend anymore. The uncomfortable truth is that that people in affluent countries don’t want to change their lifestyle. Affluent countries are less affected by global warming than countries responsible for a fraction of global emissions. All the emissions from manufacturing follow suit.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish it were different but I would not be surprised if it’s billions before anything changes. And even then there will be a major proportion of people that celebrate it as the second coming.
Billions? Sounds optimistic. Try trillions or quadrillions before anything really changes. Orders of magnitude are just a dime a dozen after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, those still unconvinced of the human influence on climate change seem to be the sort that would trust the basement randos more than they would reputable scientists
There are various levels of perspectives - Climate Warming is a hoax - Climate Warming is happening, but not Man Made and part of larger cycles - Climate Warming is Man Made, but drastic De-growth strategies cause more harm. - Climate Warming is Man Made, don't need de-growth strategies because Technology will solve energy efficiency, clean energy growth and carbon capture and humans adapt along the way - Climate War…
The issue with any significant steps to curbing the climate or environmental impacts with laws or treaties is always: But the economy. It creates an incentive where someone doesn't follow the laws, burn everything they can to accelerate their economy, and take industry from other countries. My proposal is thus: create a supranational treaty organization with a EPA like authority(or whatever the European equivalent is…
And what exactly would prevent a country like the United States to use its outsize resources to moot this org?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dismissing thousands of years of global temperature averages because you had a cold winter, very smart.
Im not dismissing anything. I’m just saying, when a measurement was taken in my region in 1925 it was warmer then than it was 100 years later in 2025.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are various levels of perspectives - Climate Warming is a hoax - Climate Warming is happening, but not Man Made and part of larger cycles - Climate Warming is Man Made, but drastic De-growth strategies cause more harm. - Climate Warming is Man Made, don't need de-growth strategies because Technology will solve energy efficiency, clean energy growth and carbon capture and humans adapt along the way - Climate War…
You're missing: "Climate is warming, but this is a good thing because it means Jesus will come back sooner and I'll live in endless bliss and not have to go to work anymore, so I'm going to do my part by driving a huge truck and pretend like it's fake."
It is a shame that Twitter's algorithm is so damn easy to manipulate that it's basically owned by propaganda firms now. Elon doesn't even care, more outrage == more engagement and that's what feeds the system. It's a feedback loop of crap.
El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. it's not about us guys, relax.
It is specifically about cleaning up the data by removing these 3 and showing a clearer picture of acceleration without these 3 factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh and roughly 65M of sea level rise as the planet shifts to a snow/ice-free mode. Current rates of sea level rise are still in single digit millimetres per year ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise ), so that would take millennia. If there's even enough ice in the caps to get that far. Pre-historically, vast ice sheets covered broad swaths of regions now considered "temperate" (per the famous XKCD, "Bost…
This is a very common figure you can find much support for. Here’s one legitimate source: Ice Melt | Global Sea Level – NASA Sea Level Change Portal — https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea...
Don't kid yourself - we closed this one with "Won't Fix" a while ago. "But what about ?" No. Full stop. We're not going to do it, and we're not even going to apologize for it either. All we can do now is prepare, not that I've seen a lot on this front either.
That blank will not be filled in with today's technologies, but with technologies we cannot conceive of today and with an energy abundance that we can hardly imagine.
Even in this apparently dire predicament, optimism is warranted.
For those (like me) who don't know the authors, apparently they are well-published authors in the field of climate science whose work is very highly cited: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=gra... Not a perfect measure of whether this is a reputable article but at least readers should know this isn't from some randos in a basement somewhere.
It says this in bold red at the top - "This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal." I am not a climate scientist - how should I think about this statement? Normally I am looking for some statement that shows a document has been vetted.