Will global warming be reversed by human's effort?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Don't be fooled by alarmist' rhetoric.
We are only one of the variables.
Look into the earth biome during mis 11.
You tell others to look it up? Lol. That's rich.
You do realize that scientists understand the earth is not currently warming naturally, right? And, that humans are the only variable at this time, right?
Yes, but will take decades.
The world won't be "destroyed" just altered due to climate change. Needless to say, we won't like many of those changes.
You just proved you never bothered to look it up yourself, despite telling others. Par for the course.
I'll take that as a, "Yes, that is true Q, I never bother to look anything up, but will demand others do so and then insult them personally when they try to educate me, because as anyone can plainly see, I have no argument."
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
meanwhile:
(this is a couple years old)
For the third year in a row, the carbon dioxide emissions that drive climate change worldwide have been level.
The emissions pause is particularly noteworthy because it comes despite a growing global economy, the International Energy Agency announced. That's a sign that carbon emissions are "decoupling" from the economy as other sources of energy come online.
(this is a couple years old)
For the third year in a row, the carbon dioxide emissions that drive climate change worldwide have been level.
The emissions pause is particularly noteworthy because it comes despite a growing global economy, the International Energy Agency announced. That's a sign that carbon emissions are "decoupling" from the economy as other sources of energy come online.
No. It could have been, fifty, maybe even thirty years ago.
It's like the Titanic needs a 50 seconds to change course to avoid crashing into an iceberg. At Crash-20seconds, we're still going full steam ahead. Guess what happens!
Global warming will be reversed, as all climate extremes have been corrected, by nature, on nature's time-schedule - say, 10-20,000 years after we stop naturally. Of course, if we hurry up and get the crash over with quickly - that is, if we don't have time to make it as much worse as we're on track to doing - then nature can repair the damage sooner.
It's like the Titanic needs a 50 seconds to change course to avoid crashing into an iceberg. At Crash-20seconds, we're still going full steam ahead. Guess what happens!
Global warming will be reversed, as all climate extremes have been corrected, by nature, on nature's time-schedule - say, 10-20,000 years after we stop naturally. Of course, if we hurry up and get the crash over with quickly - that is, if we don't have time to make it as much worse as we're on track to doing - then nature can repair the damage sooner.
Last edited:
We still could, if we all sincerely wanted to.
But the most powerful among us don't care what's destroyed, as long as they get the best of it, and the semi-privileged don't want to give up any of their petty privilege, and the uneducated don't have to believe it's true because they have a whole network of alternate information sources.
The poor have no say; the kids have no vote; the intellectuals and scientists are dismissed and reviled; the third world is too busy trying to survive; the politicians of 'developed' countries have to balance the possible future of their/our grandchildren against the immediate and present economy. Result: they make promises to the grandchildren and tax grants to the fossil fuel industry.
You can put that on the last bumper-sticker:
lie to kids; subsidize coal
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
"Decoupling"? This seems to be just a fancy way of saying we are progressively emitting less CO2 per unit GDP, which has actually been the trend for half a century, ever since the Yom Kippur War, i.e. the economy has never been "coupled" to CO2 emissions in the first place.
The actual new data shows last year carbon dioxide emissions flattened to about 33 Gigatonnes after two hefty years of rising emissions.
No, it's not a sign of that at all. It's simply a sign that the power sector's fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power output.
Currently, the carbon emissions are still at an alarming rate, but it seems you'd just rather not only just ignore it, but make sure others pay no attention to it either.
From SciAm Dec 2019:
==============================
CO2 Emissions Will Break Another Record in 2019
The recent increase in emissions from fossil fuel burning did slow down, but huge cuts are needed to avoid dangerous warming
By Chelsea Harvey, Nathanial Gronewold, E&E News on December 4, 2019
Global carbon emissions are expected to hit an all-time high in 2019, scientists say, smashing a previous record set in 2018.
By the end of the year, emissions from industrial activities and the burning of fossil fuels will pump an estimated 36.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And total carbon emissions from all human activities, including agriculture and land use, will likely cap off at about 43.1 billion tons.
==================================
Unless people like you have anything to say about it.
What's needed is a sudden, radical change in direction.
Not merely changing methods of energy production, but reducing our energy use. No more bitcoin, cloud or sending videos of our lunch, cats and junk to everyone in the world every five minutes. No more neon-garish nightscapes visible from Mars. No more skyscrapers with the AC on all the time, hummers, business flights and political junkets half-way around the world, pipelines, 24-hour casinos and certainly no more beef herds and golf courses in deserts. No more nuclear testing and carpet-bombing. No more designer babies, and a lot fewer regular babies.
We would, in fact, have to change our life-style.
That's just not going to happen.
It never does.
Every civilization pushes its crazy agenda to the edge of the cliff and then prays all the way down.
Not merely changing methods of energy production, but reducing our energy use. No more bitcoin, cloud or sending videos of our lunch, cats and junk to everyone in the world every five minutes. No more neon-garish nightscapes visible from Mars. No more skyscrapers with the AC on all the time, hummers, business flights and political junkets half-way around the world, pipelines, 24-hour casinos and certainly no more beef herds and golf courses in deserts. No more nuclear testing and carpet-bombing. No more designer babies, and a lot fewer regular babies.
We would, in fact, have to change our life-style.
That's just not going to happen.
It never does.
Every civilization pushes its crazy agenda to the edge of the cliff and then prays all the way down.
While blaming the guy who was telling them to stay away from the edge.
Yes and the global population is still rising, the people who can least afford to have and support children are having more of them than anyone else and there's nothing but polluting fuel to supply their needs.
Best solution there - educate women. Educating women lowers the birthrate, increases the odds of any specific birth being successful, improves overall family outcomes and reduces the effects of extremism.
Why d'you suppose despots of all stripes - military, theological, economic and political - curtail women's rights?
If you mean "the world as we know it"
Nope!