91–98 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China does accept the reality of climate change and is enacting policies against it. It might not be nearly enough but it's not fair to lump them with the USA on this one.
Have you been to Beijing? China is in a class all of its own when it comes to pollution. It’s not fair to lump the US in with China.
EDIT: The title has been updated: it used to say: "Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise to exceed 2m by 2100" _________________________________________________________________ Incredibly misleading title. The expected ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise are, per the article: 26 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions from the Paris agreement) 51 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions in line with current emissions) 6…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to any scientifically demonstrated conclusion on how much humans affect climate via CO2 emissions? It's definitely some, but how much? You won't find the answer and that should make the most critical thinkers amongst you to question how much you actually can rely on much of these predictions about the future 30-80 years out. It seems like that would be a great place to start if you want to convince peop…
You have on hackernews a study from Exxon from 1978 that correctly predicted carbon in the atmosphere and global warming because of it correctly for today. I have started taking most of the studies numbers as conservative numbers as sadly because of billions spend by the oil industry on destroying research and science reputation related to global warming and carbon the researchers publish the most conservative number…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand. That said, in retrospect, we seem to be well ahead of "X will happen by Year Y" predictions. I guess my point is, better safe than sorry. Because as it is, we're fast-tracking to worst case.
Can you point to any scientifically demonstrated conclusion on how much humans affect climate via CO2 emissions? It's definitely some, but how much? You won't find the answer and that should make the most critical thinkers amongst you to question how much you actually can rely on much of these predictions about the future 30-80 years out. It seems like that would be a great place to start if you want to convince peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly a zero-sum game because the earth isn’t a closed system. We’re constantly getting heat energy from the sun and radiating it back out into space at an equal rate. The composition of the atmosphere (greenhouse gasses) decides what equilibrium temperature will be. So if we had big refrigerators refreezing the arctic (without creating greenhouse gasses), they would put a ton of heat into the air but it would…
By that thinking you could just cool down the air. No need to freeze the arctic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thermal energy storage might be able to capture the waste heat. That’s assuming we can make such a massive amount of ice to begin with.
I think the scale of the effort would be way too big. Same probably for carbon sequestration. It’s just too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand. That said, in retrospect, we seem to be well ahead of "X will happen by Year Y" predictions. I guess my point is, better safe than sorry. Because as it is, we're fast-tracking to worst case.
Can you point to any scientifically demonstrated conclusion on how much humans affect climate via CO2 emissions? It's definitely some, but how much? You won't find the answer and that should make the most critical thinkers amongst you to question how much you actually can rely on much of these predictions about the future 30-80 years out. It seems like that would be a great place to start if you want to convince peop…
I said nothing about CO2, who and/or why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to any scientifically demonstrated conclusion on how much humans affect climate via CO2 emissions? It's definitely some, but how much? You won't find the answer and that should make the most critical thinkers amongst you to question how much you actually can rely on much of these predictions about the future 30-80 years out. It seems like that would be a great place to start if you want to convince peop…
I'm not sure how this applies to my statement. My scope was simple: Time and again the predictions have been wrong, and the majority of the time milestones are being hit earlier rather than later. I said nothing about CO2, who and/or why.