• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Global warming discussion V

Pixel42 said:
NOAA say equal warmest May and second warmest year to date.

What makes it surprising is that this is an ENSO neutral year. Years which set, or come close to setting, new record highs are usually El Nino years, for obvious reasons.

I'm wondering if the lack of the usual global dimming due to the lockdown might be a factor?
Click to expand...

I haven’t seen any model results that would say one way or the other if a COVID-19 signal would show up. Global dimming from large volcanic eruptions are very apparent both in the model results and in the temperature record, but it could be that global dimming doesn’t respond quickly enough to reduced aerosol emissions for it to show up in the same way.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there is a COVID-19 related signal though.
 
Slash CO2, Then Wait—and Wait—for Temperatures to Drop (Scientific American)

Climate action today will take decades to manifest in global temperatures because of “climate inertia”
Click to expand...
Climate action taken by the world today wouldn't be noticed for decades to come, according to researchers who say warming on Earth won't start to slow down for at least 20 years.

And that's probably an optimistic scenario.

A study published Tuesday in Nature Communications illustrates how the rewards for aggressive action would come much later. If global carbon dioxide emissions began falling tomorrow by at least 5% every year, the rate at which the Earth is warming wouldn't begin to change —at least in a detectable way —until after the year 2040 or so.
Click to expand...

Given human nature it's near impossible to get people to sacrifice something in the here and now for a hypothetical benefit decades in the future. That's the problem.

But this isn't really new news, is it?
 
Puppycow said:
Slash CO2, Then Wait—and Wait—for Temperatures to Drop (Scientific American)



Given human nature it's near impossible to get people to sacrifice something in the here and now for a hypothetical benefit decades in the future. That's the problem.

But this isn't really new news, is it?
Click to expand...

No, it's been explained since the mid seventies, as far as I know.

(It was covered in High School science as 'The Greenhouse Effect')
 
Puppycow said:
Slash CO2, Then Wait—and Wait—for Temperatures to Drop (Scientific American)



Given human nature it's near impossible to get people to sacrifice something in the here and now for a hypothetical benefit decades in the future. That's the problem.

But this isn't really new news, is it?
Click to expand...
Right exactly true. All well known for quite some time, and spot on regarding human nature too.

This is why for my Red Baron Project I have come up with a plan that requires no sacrifice at all. Every part of the plan is wholly beneficial and profitable, both on an individual and macro scale.... with only the side effect of reducing atmospheric CO2.

This way we avoid this particularly nasty side of human nature.
 
Puppycow said:
Given human nature it's near impossible to get people to sacrifice something in the here and now for a hypothetical benefit decades in the future.
Click to expand...
Decades? For many people even two weeks is too long, even when facing the possibility of imminent death if they don't (Covid-19).

But we don't need to 'sacrifice', we just need to choose better options. Not overeating is not a sacrifice, it makes me healthier! Not buying junk and cherishing the good stuff I have is no sacrifice, it makes me happier! I bought an electric car and the only thing I 'sacrificed' was having to deal with a dirty smelly gas engine!

So it's not about 'sacrifice', but attitude. If global carbon dioxide emissions began falling tomorrow by at least 5% every year, knowing that things are getting better could in itself be enough to make you feel happy. The end goal may still be a long way off, but just making progress can be a sufficient reward.

People tend to be afraid of change. They worry that if we go 'green' it will cause prices to rise and make them poorer, so they will have to sacrifice their lifestyle for a worse one. But would it actually be worse? Over 40% of Americans are obese (20% severely), costing an estimated $120 billion and contributing to 400,000 deaths per year. Cutting back on consumption would not be a 'sacrifice' - it would actually make us feel better, save money, and possibly even save our lives! Being sustainable is more enjoyable than buying mountains of junk and continuously throwing it away. Renewable energy is cheaper than coal, cleaner and more convenient than fossil fuels. LED bulbs run cooler and put out better light. Electric cars are cheaper to run, require less maintenance and are nicer to drive.

How is not destroying the environment, living a healthy life, saving money and enjoying the latest technology a sacrifice?
 
Global heating: best and worst case scenarios less likely than thought

Doomsayers and hopemongers alike may need to revise their climate predictions after a study that almost rules out the most optimistic forecasts for global heating while downplaying the likelihood of worst-case scenarios.

The international team of scientists involved in the research say they have narrowed the range of probable climate outcomes, which reduces the uncertainty that has long plagued public debate about this field.
Click to expand...

This confluence of sources has allowed scientists to estimate with a 90% level of probability that climate sensitivity is between 2.3C and 4.7C. The most likely level of climate sensitivity has nudged slightly above 3C. Hausfather says a figure below 2C is extremely unlikely. Above 5C remains possible, though the study lowers that likelihood to 10%.
Click to expand...
 
Pixel42 said:
Global heating: best and worst case scenarios less likely than thought
Click to expand...

RealClimate discusses the new assessment in depth here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/07/climate-sensitivity-a-new-assessment/

Not all that much of a change, the error bars have narrowed a bit and mean is slightly higher. Most of the uncertainly is still on the high side but there isn't as much as before.

This assessment was apparently done before CIMP6 model results were know, so that discrepancy is not addressed or resolved.

In the meantime, it’s certainly worth stressing that the spread of sensitivities across the models is not itself a probability function. That the CMIP5 (and CMIP3) models all fell within the assessed range of climate sensitivity is probably best seen as a fortunate coincidence. That the CMIP6 range goes beyond the assessed range merely underscores that. Given too that CMIP6 is ongoing, metrics like the mean and spread of the climate sensitivities across the ensemble are not stable, and should not be used to bracket projections.
Click to expand...
 
The "worst case" RCP 8.5 emissions scenario is actually the most likely out to at least 2050 based on current policy and emissions trends.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/07/30/2007117117


Abstract

Climate simulation-based scenarios are routinely used to characterize a range of plausible climate futures. Despite some recent progress on bending the emissions curve, RCP8.5, the most aggressive scenario in assumed fossil fuel use for global climate models, will continue to serve as a useful tool for quantifying physical climate risk, especially over near- to midterm policy-relevant time horizons. Not only are the emissions consistent with RCP8.5 in close agreement with historical total cumulative CO2 emissions (within 1%), but RCP8.5 is also the best match out to midcentury under current and stated policies with still highly plausible levels of CO2 emissions in 2100.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm. I'm just popping in here since I saw something potentially interesting.

Project Vesta. Really short version - using olivine and beaches to help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and de acidify the ocean a bit. Haven't looked at the relevant science myself, though.
 
Aridas said:
Hmm. I'm just popping in here since I saw something potentially interesting.

Project Vesta. Really short version - using olivine and beaches to help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and de acidify the ocean a bit. Haven't looked at the relevant science myself, though.
Click to expand...
Yes it is real. No it is not anywhere near enough. Abiotic weathering of rock is between ~ 10% -20% of the terrestrial carbon cycle depending on the study you look at... So enhanced weathering could be some help. However, it is like picking up pennies while hundred dollar bills fly by in the wind overhead.

Conservatively 80% of weathering is biotic, and the vast majority of that is in the soils worldwide. Restoring this important part of the ecosystem function in degraded soils is vastly more important than all the energy and expense needed to mine olivine and place it on beaches.

Remember this important statistic. There is more carbon missing from soils worldwide than extra in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use. So changing agriculture to a net sink for carbon is a vastly superior strategy, with multiple benefits.....including, but not limited to, increased biodiversity, increased yields of quality food, improvements in the hydrological cycle, reduced erosion, decreased pollution, increase profitability for farmers, reduced health costs to society, and many many more.

And lets just hypothesize for a moment somehow we do manage to significantly lower atmospheric CO2 by artificial abiotic means like Olivine mining, now where will we get the badly needed carbon to restore our degraded soils? Burn more fossil fuels? Really? It is working way too hard for way too little benefit.

"Permaculture (permanently sustainable agriculture) is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labor; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Click to expand...

Nothing meets the definition of "protracted & thoughtless labor" more than mining olivine and crushing it to remove CO2, in my honest opinion.

Yes we can reverse Global Warming.

It does not require expensive untested risky technologies like olivine mining.

It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.

  1. Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
  2. Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
  3. Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
Yes it is real. No it is not anywhere near enough.
Click to expand...

I figured that such is likely the case, regardless, and didn't mean to even imply that it would be a miracle cure. Still, I think that it looks like a interesting approach to be included as part of a notably larger strategy, with the ocean de-acidification part being of particular note to me, especially near coral reefs.

Red Baron Farms said:
Conservatively 80% of weathering is biotic, and the vast majority of that is in the soils worldwide. Restoring this important part of the ecosystem function in degraded soils is vastly more important than all the energy and expense needed to mine olivine and place it on beaches.
Click to expand...

As they note, a huge amount of olivine has already been mined while miners are seeking other things and is just being treated as waste rock. If, say, just that was used, that effectively takes the mining part of the energy and expense out of the picture, making it significantly more cost and energy effective. That wouldn't negate that soils likely are much more important to devote more resources to, though.



Red Baron Farms said:
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.

  1. Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
  2. Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
  3. Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue with you there.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
As they note, a huge amount of olivine has already been mined while miners are seeking other things and is just being treated as waste rock. If, say, just that was used, that effectively takes the mining part of the energy and expense out of the picture, making it significantly more cost and energy effective. .
Click to expand...
Very good point. I would try a larger trial just to see if there were any harmful ecological side effects (like excessive leaching of heavy metals or some such), and if not...great idea for disposal of certain types of mine tailings.....
 
(Answer to Aridas)
If you look at the actual warming statistics they show that it's only getting warmer during the winter time and in cold countries. There's also that storms and forest fires are down since 50 years ago. The only thing would be rising sea levels but from what I can see, the Oceans are large enough that they won't be going up by that much. Also what makes oil company executives an authority on global warming? With CO2 based global warming there's a special danger in that it's taken to be undisputable where the scientific process of retesting conclusions isn't allowed to function like it normally would. That's why after the models have all failed to predict the last 20 years, and the CO2 levels in the antarctic record went up after the earth got hotter, the theory still is prevalent.
 
Lupus said:
(Answer to Aridas)
If you look at the actual warming statistics they show that it's only getting warmer during the winter time and in cold countries. There's also that storms and forest fires are down since 50 years ago. The only thing would be rising sea levels but from what I can see,
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you removed those blinders...

Also what makes oil company executives an authority on global warming?
Click to expand...
I give up. What's the answer?

With CO2 based global warming there's a special danger in that it's taken to be undisputable
Click to expand...
It's certainly disputable. If you want to argue that 15ºC is lower than 14ºC then go ahead - nobody's stopping you.

That's why after the models have all failed to predict the last 20 years,
Click to expand...
All the models failed to 'predict' that the last 20 years would have a climate? Seems unlikely.

CO2 levels in the antarctic record went up after the earth got hotter,
Click to expand...
So you admit that the Earth is getting warmer?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
So you admit that the Earth is getting warmer?
Click to expand...

I think this is actually a reference to one of the deniers favourite cherry picked facts: that in most natural past climate change, the rise in temperature preceded the rise in CO2 levels. This, of course, is because CO2 levels do not simply rise for no reason whatsoever, the usual cause of them rising is a rise in temperature - i.e. the rise is a feedback, not a forcing. The dominant climate forcing on timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years is the Milankovitch cycles, but the changes in temperature produced are greatly amplified by the consequent change in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is due to the fact that CO2 is a water soluble gas, and cold water absorbs more than warm water.

This is all well known and well understood, and is information that anyone who could be bothered could easily look up for themselves.

ETA: oh, and no climate model claims to accurately predict climate over a period as short as 20 years, as they can only predict long term underlying trends, they can't predict the noise due to short term variations like ENSO etc. It takes at least 30 years of data to reliably distinguish underlying trends from noise.
 
Last edited:
Alright. There's a bunch of claims made here, so I'll be doing a bit more splitting up than usual and this will get a bit long. First, though, thank you for expressing such as you did and moving this discussion here, much as it probably would have been slightly better to provide a direct link to here as courtesy in the thread that you moved this part of the discussion from and a direct link/quote to what you were responding to in this thread. Luckily, I had posted previously in this part of the thread, though, so it didn't matter as much.

Lupus said:
(Answer to Aridas)
If you look at the actual warming statistics they show that it's only getting warmer during the winter time and in cold countries.
Click to expand...

After checking that again... I'm ruling that claim as false, given the "only" part. It is true that there's notably more effect in the direction that you're emphasizing, though, because, in general, cold things are warming up faster than warm things, with the Arctic, for example, heating up at roughly double the average rise.

To poke at some effects of that in the US, incidentally, NPR's got a piece that pokes at the subject a bit. How Warming Winters Are Affecting Everything. Warming winters would be a notable problem, even if it was just that, but to be clear -
Summers Are Getting Hotter Faster, Especially in North America's Farm Belt
Four decades of satellite data confirm man-made global warming and find seasonal warming trends that could threaten crops.



Lupus said:
There's also that storms
Click to expand...

First, your source?

Absent that, I'll scrounge around a little. You're referring to, perhaps, stuff like this? Not much change in projected difference? Maybe some of this?
According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. Temperatures were high in the 1920s and 1930s when there was much less CO 2 in the atmosphere. Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way.
Click to expand...
The latter, I should note is argued by H. Leighton Steward -
Steward is also a director at oil and gas company EOG Resources, formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. [2]
Click to expand...
Naturally, that the guy has severe financial conflicts of interest doesn't negate what he says directly, but really should make you much more wary of what he's pushing.

With that said, a short summation of what looks like the overall evidence on the issue is...
It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.
Click to expand...

To poke at that further,
Global satellite data since 1981 can be used to extend analysis of hurricane intensity to each ocean, looking for any trend in wind speed (Elsner 2008). Figure 3 plots the long term trend in maximum wind speed (eg - whether hurricanes are getting stronger or weaker) against different strength hurricanes. This tells us not only whether hurricanes are overall getting stronger but also how different strength hurricanes are being affected. Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.
Click to expand...

As noted, there is uncertainty about the specifics of the subject for a number of reasons, not least being very significant changes in the quality of data collection, but your claim here seems to suffer notably from the common phenomenon in climate change denial of trying to cherry pick some fact or claim that does not represent the larger picture all that well.

Fun fact/link on one aspect of hurricane damage, though, just because. Today's hurricanes kill way fewer Americans, and NOAA’s satellites are the reason why


Lupus said:
and forest fires are down since 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

As for forest fires, that's a generally more complex subject. Trying to solely focus on one aspect of forest fires numbers is inevitably going to be misleading. For example, when significant areas of forest are removed to make space for agriculture, that's significant area that can no longer be counted when it comes to raw numbers for how many forest fires are happening. It's entirely plausible that fires can happen at greater frequency and severity in the remainder of the forest while the raw numbers go down. To be clear, I'm using that as an example of why it's wrong to look at more complex problems like that through a narrow lens when evaluating them, rather than presenting that as a sole cause.

To poke further into the larger issues -

Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world

From the abstract there -

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.
Click to expand...

It's honestly not hard to cherry pick from that at all, given that again, forest fires are a notably more complex issue than the simplistic versions that tend to get tossed around. I do suggest reviewing that in greater detail if you're actually interested, though, with the added note that it's still not even close to a full overview. As well as this article from the same people (well, plus one) that's much more recent - Wildfires Are Becoming so Frequent and Intense They Are Turning Forests From Carbon Sinks Into Climate Heaters.




Lupus said:
The only thing would be rising sea levels but from what I can see, the Oceans are large enough that they won't be going up by that much.
Click to expand...

First, sea levels, then. You sound a bit dismissive about this, but even a few inches has a very disproportionate effect on humans. Something like 40% of humans live quite close to the coasts and 8 out of 10 of the biggest cities in the world are on the coast. What's projected to happen in the next thirty years is expected to do quite a huge amount of damage and displace potentially hundreds of millions of people. That displacement and damage then has plenty of subsequent consequences as well.

Second... your analysis is wildly incomplete if those are the only factors you're looking at. Global warming and the resulting climate change is not all bad, but the negatives significantly outweigh the positives.

Lupus said:
Also what makes oil company executives an authority on global warming?
Click to expand...

They're not an authority. To be clear, they weren't being used as an authority in what I said, either. What I said is that they *knew* with great certainty (because of the actual authorities on the subject) and decided to work hard and spend big to obfuscate what they knew to be the case for the sake of profits. That's to the point where Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change

Do you dispute this?

Lupus said:
With CO2 based global warming there's a special danger in that it's taken to be undisputable where the scientific process of retesting conclusions isn't allowed to function like it normally would. That's why after the models have all failed to predict the last 20 years, and the CO2 levels in the antarctic record went up after the earth got hotter, the theory still is prevalent.
Click to expand...

*sigh* Honestly, this post is far too long for easy consumption already and has taken a dramatically greater amount of my time than it took for you, so I'm not going to look into this part more deeply and respond as I did the previous parts. Given the nature of the rest of your response, though, I don't consider it at all likely that there's all that much merit to what you're saying here when it's put into the larger picture. Hopefully, you've learned a bit, either way.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
First, sea levels, then. You sound a bit dismissive about this, but even a few inches has a very disproportionate effect on humans.
Click to expand...

Good post, but I'll just add to the sea-level comment.

Something often missed in the sea-level rise is that the rise is amplified by both spring (aka: king) tides and storm surges, so that if the sea level rise is said to be six inches, the area of impact might well be the two feet, depending on the local topography and sea floor.

Very long explanation of it all here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-019-09549-5

tl;dr version:

Interactions between the contributions to coastal water level have significant implications for projected changes in the frequency and amplitude of future extreme events, yet most projections neglect the interactions discussed in this paper and consider only linear additions of the relevant processes
Click to expand...
 
Kurzgesagt recently published a video about Global Warming.
Like all of their educational videos it's mostly aimed at kids and laypeople, so it's not highly technical, but it does give a pretty succinct big picture of the problem and the current situation.

 
California Wildfires Have Burned 4 Million Acres And The Season Isn't Over Yet

California hit a grim milestone on Sunday as the total number of acres burned this wildfire season crossed 4 million, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire.

The agency said that since it started recording the amount of land burned in a single season the state had never surpassed 2 million acres until this year.

"The 4 million mark is unfathomable. It boggles the mind, and it takes your breath away," Scott McLean, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, told The Associated Press.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder how much the fires themselves add to the problem.
 
Puppycow said:
California Wildfires Have Burned 4 Million Acres And The Season Isn't Over Yet



Makes me wonder how much the fires themselves add to the problem.
Click to expand...

It's a small problem, but not nearly as big a deal as these fires

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02568-y

It's not just the difference in total CO2 that is the problem. These Peat/Permafrost fires are releasing Carbon that has been sequestered for tens or hundreds of thousands of year.

Brush fires in California can rapidly re-absorb carbon due to new growth following the fire, so differences in land use are the real problem. Eg desertification in which the new landscape won't hold as much carbon as the current landscape.

In terms of total CO2 though, there is no real comparison. Artic peat lands and Permafrost hold enough carbon to drive 3 - 5 deg of warming on their own without even factoring in fossil fuels. .
 
lomiller said:
It's a small problem, but not nearly as big a deal as these fires

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02568-y

It's not just the difference in total CO2 that is the problem. These Peat/Permafrost fires are releasing Carbon that has been sequestered for tens or hundreds of thousands of year.

Brush fires in California can rapidly re-absorb carbon due to new growth following the fire, so differences in land use are the real problem. Eg desertification in which the new landscape won't hold as much carbon as the current landscape.

In terms of total CO2 though, there is no real comparison. Artic peat lands and Permafrost hold enough carbon to drive 3 - 5 deg of warming on their own without even factoring in fossil fuels. .
Click to expand...

Then there's the methane, 25x as heat-trapping as CO2...
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Then there's the methane, 25x as heat-trapping as CO2...
Click to expand...

Discussed before, but due to it’s short lifespan in the atmosphere methane released from Peat/Permafrost would decay into CO2 before there was any meaningful effect on climate. It’s all but impossible to melt that much permafrost over the course of a decade, but even if you could the climate impact would also last only a decade or so, after that it’d be like a CO2 release, rather than a Methane release.
 
lomiller said:
Discussed before, but due to it’s short lifespan in the atmosphere methane released from Peat/Permafrost would decay into CO2 before there was any meaningful effect on climate. It’s all but impossible to melt that much permafrost over the course of a decade, but even if you could the climate impact would also last only a decade or so, after that it’d be like a CO2 release, rather than a Methane release.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Net effect, still bad. So to reach the Permian-level methane release, we need ocean floor methane. Coming right up...
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Interesting. Net effect, still bad. So to reach the Permian-level methane release, we need ocean floor methane. Coming right up...
Click to expand...

Permian extinction likely wasn’t Methane driven either. Methane only lasts a little more then a decade in the atmosphere before it decays into CO2. Basically, you’d need a single really big event to cause damage, which doesn’t seem to be the case with the P-T event.

The best current guess for the cause of the P-T extinction is that large-scale volcanic activity either directly released CO2 or burnt off coal beds releasing the sequestered Carbon in them as CO2. Temperatures rose causing a mass extinction on land and warmer conditions caused nutrients to flow into the oceans. The combination of nutrients + warmer water deoxygenized the oceans and along with the increased acidity from the CO2 release toppled the ocean food web and allowed bacteria that consume sulfur oxides. These emit poisonous hydrogen sulfide, which killed most remaining life in the oceans.




Anyway, the main takeaway is that the culprit from the P-T extinction was almost certainly CO2, not methane.
 
An interesting video that (et alia) debunks Planet of the Humans:



On the subject of a carbon tax, I think the way to make it more popular would be to give every taxpayer a carbon tax "prebate". What I mean is, it's like a rebate, but you get it at the beginning of each year (or each fiscal year, or starting at the beginning of the period when the carbon tax goes into effect). So people will get money up front so that it feels more like a benefit than a tax. Of course, the first "prebate" would have to be an estimate, but I don't see that as a major problem. It shouldn't be very hard to make a ballpark prediction of how much money it will bring in.

Would it be better to get one big check per year or divide it into 12 monthly payments? The latter sort of also feels attractive to me, but maybe I'm a minority in that respect.
 
Many times I have come across die-hard people who insist that there is no climate change and all this is a conspiracy. But if you just watch the weather, you will notice that the winters have become milder. In the last 10-12 years, there are almost no such severe frosts as in my childhood. And the fact that the temperature on Earth is increasing is also evidenced by real facts. I read the article "Arctic Tundra Going Green" and I understand that this is not fiction. This is real scientific evidence that the climate is changing. And I doubt that warming will bring us any positive changes. Scientists are already claiming that with warming, there will be more insects and a higher risk of contracting humans with yet unknown diseases that live and mutate on animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom