DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Just not this time predictions has always sounded true on climate science.The bad thing is that it gets shit wrong a lot. You entirely missed the point of his comment.
Last edited:
Just not this time predictions has always sounded true on climate science.The bad thing is that it gets shit wrong a lot. You entirely missed the point of his comment.
I think all these model projections are underestimating global warming. There is a vicious cycle thats about to be unleashed. We need to use ACs even more to cope with GW. We Will need more electricity. We Will pollute more in the short to medium term. GW is exacerbated.Hello its your daily doomsday bell, just here to inform you that Permafrost is melting in Canadian Arctic, 70 years before estimated.
Remember the Positive Feedback Loop?? this is it we are done. The article of 2050 seems pretty spot on if not a bit to reserved.
![]()
Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted
Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had fearedwww.theguardian.com
Exactly which is why we are in a climate crisis. And people refusing This are climate science deniers.I think all these model projections are underestimating global warming. There is a vicious cycle thats about to be unleashed. We need to use ACs even more to cope with GW. We Will need more electricity. We Will pollute more in the short to medium term. GW is exacerbated.
We actually do know emissions, well the official reported ones.The part of the climate change argument I take most issue with isn't regarding measurement; the argument of "More carbon in air = we getting hotter" is a fine one.
I do, however find it very dishonest when the alarmism focuses on industrial output of carbon, as if turning first world production "off" would even remotely solve the issue. I could easily get on board with eventual full scale modernized nuclear for baseline power + renewables (hydro, solar, wind where applicable). So, that's all well and good for a developed country. If there was a political will (there isn't) for it, and an honest effort to remove all of the red tape around nuclear energy (there isn't), there's no reason it couldn't be made to happen within 5 years.
But then what to do with everyone else? You're never going to get Nigeria, or India, or Indonesia, or whichever other populous developing country of your choice to do anything meaningful to curb their emissions in the very short (as in now) timeframe given by our current day alarmists. Also, that is only focusing on the belief that our measurables are even correct. Does anyone actually know what each country produces, in reality? I would say no. I doubt very much that most countries in the world even know how many people they really have. The US doesn't even know how many we have, we just take a census, and estimate the rest.
What part of above wasn't covered. In my reply??Does anyone actually know what each country produces, in reality?
Its not really that hard you see we just take reports from energy companies to figure out how much has been used we do not need to know what each individual person uses. If they are part of the country they use the suppliers installed so all data should be relatively straight forward. I do not see your issue with the way the data is collected.You posted a video of CO2 emissions sliced up by country. The dividing by countries would be based on estimates, not reality. Especially when it's based on a per capita basis, and most countries don't know how many people they have.
If there currently is 9-10 billion people instead of 7 billion then the numbers are not accurate. However the energy used will still be mostly accurate due to data given by the respectable services. Gas/electricity/oilSo if there is currently 9-10 billion people living on the planet, rather than the 7.7 billion current estimate, that doesn't contribute toward the heating of the planet?