Profile pic is from Jason Box, depicting a projection of Arctic warming to the year 2100 based on current trends.
Climate Town just did a video on that topic. Exxon is apparently still running the PR commercials they made for it, but that project is all but dead because it wasn’t going anywhere. Turns out doubling the output of not much doesn’t get much.
Like the others have always been labeled afterwards.
This timeline they’ve already been through the system and saw our broadcasts. Guess who is on the “Do Not Contact” list for the warp capable group?
Depends on their goals. If they want the US powerhouse to topple, then fanning this flame is very productive.
My phrasing may have sounded like the “humans aren’t the problem” climate deniers, but my point was that our amounts are only a percentage of the natural ebb and flow of CO2. The problem is that our addition was enough to tip the scales and cause an initial slow climb that has gotten faster and faster, and our percentage (which has itself magnified in the past few decades) is still a part of an increase from other natural sources that would have stayed dormant had we not started the process. Human activity was the catalyst of the reaction, and usually a catalyst amount required isn’t large.
Unless global heating is reduced to 1.2C
If we plateaued right now and did everything possible to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans, it would probably take a few thousand years to get back down. The reasoning - we weren’t the main CO2 contributor, we just were the extra catalyst to throw things off to begin the acceleration up. So now that things are off balance and feedbacks are kicking in, how can we reverse what we put into the environment AND counter the extra feedback outputs? It’s like trying to stop the boulder that was easy to push onto the hill slope.
I think I get it, but it still hurts the brain. I think many scifi stories may be right and if we develop some type of warp/hyperspace/whatever, a human looking into whatever it looks like would go mad.
Not sure this guy understands
That’s far enough.
Huh. Who would have guessed that would happen? /s
So you disagree with her stance? Or just how much attention she’s bringing to the topic? Why does it bother you?
I never considered that approach, but that would sound like a convenient excuse and the religious “forgive the sins” people will eat it up, blind to how he acts the same now as he did then.
The reason: while alternative energy has grown very rapidly which gives the impression of replacing fossil fuels, demand also increased (maybe faster) so the ratio is similar. Also, fossil fuels can’t be replaced everywhere. Think heavy duty machinery, most aircraft. Reduce demand and consumption (a topic of debate on its own of how and what) and maybe the ratios would be more on the alternative side.
The first Earth Day was in 1970. It might have been too late even back then to avoid any consequences because nature had been absorbing what we had already done for a long time, but it sure would have helped to slam on the brakes. We should absolutely keep trying to get those brakes pressed, but it’s debatable if we’re already over the cliff.
You’re not a doomer if you’re seeing all the evidence and putting it together. You’re a realist. The label “doomer” is just reactionary from those who want to keep the status quo and don’t like people pointing out reality.
I’m still in awe how it gets things correct from randomness. Even the early stages years ago that were obviously bad still would get close to the idea, and now it’s not that easy to determine some video origins.
I’m not talking about the morality and ethics of how it got here, but the science of how it works.
“He” meaning the society and politics at the time which needed a war god to rally support against suppression and invasion. Before such events Yahweh still had believers (Yahwists) but they were a smaller group compared to other god worship. Until wartime, of course.
Yahweh is rather war-mongering.
You’ll know. When her behavior gets to the point where she’s not having good quality of life, if she starts hiding all the time, panicking regularly, or finding dark places to be alone, or grooming/litterbox issues. I think if she just has bouts of memory loss but they return and she’s happy, it’s not time yet. I’ve been “fortunate” with my pets in that whatever the issue was, each time it became obvious very quickly and made the decision easy (but still hard to deal with, it always is).
Hey, we had a taste of socialism with FDR’s long run, and besides [long list of improvements to the country] we hated it!
Not only doesn’t understand what a tariff is, he thinks it’s some magic word to make anything change and him get credit for it.
If he didn’t have full blown dementia I’d say he’s an idiot. The ones around him going along with it, they ARE idiots.
From a science pov it makes sense that it’s something to pursue, even as just a renewable biofuel. Algae grows fast, it’s where oil comes from, it’s a biological “fix”. It’s perfect. Except it didn’t work nearly as well as hoped.
I looked into it a long time ago as a “solution” to how to best pull carbon of out the air and sequester it. Algae farms over deep water areas, grown and culled and the dead carbon sunk deep to stay out of the loop. Sounds perfect, doesn’t it?
But in both scenarios there are so many costs and variables to consider that are left out when proponents are selling it. Some are just the “forgotten” costs of running a process that pollutes on their own and take energy (that requires emissions too). Some are effects outside the process that damage the environment in other ways. And the costs and effects of feeding the algae itself, it just won’t grow in a vat of water alone. So many things that change the net result. And with the case for fuel (which doesn’t lock the carbon away so it’s not a help to existing carbon in the air) assuming the fuel percentage per weight would be high enough to justify the rest of the costs. Which Exxon figured out it was not, while selling it as a miracle.