Ocean Temperatures Break Records. Scientists are Alarmed (cnn.com) 139
An anonymous reader shared this report from CNN:
Ocean surface heat is at record-breaking levels. Temperatures began climbing in mid-March and skyrocketed over the course of several weeks, leaving scientists scrambling to figure out exactly why.
Temperatures have fallen since their peak in April — as they naturally do in the spring — but they are still higher than they have ever been on record for this time of year.... The record may not seem huge — it's nearly two-tenths of a degree higher than the previous record in 2016 — but given how much heat is needed to warm up this huge body of water, "it's a massive amount of energy," Matthew England, professor of ocean and climate dynamics at the University of New South Wales, Australia, told CNN... Some scientists are concerned the scale of these new records could mark the start of an alarming trend. Others say record-breaking temperatures like these are always concerning but to be expected given the human-caused climate crisis.
All agree the consequences are likely to be significant. Warmer oceans bleach coral, kill marine life, increase sea level rise and make the ocean less efficient at absorbing planet-warming pollution — the warmer oceans get, the more the planet will heat.
The science leader at the British Antarctic Survey told CNN that "it's probably too early" to blame El Niño." In fact, the world just emerged from a 3-year La Niña cooling event in March. So instead, CNN gets a different explanation fro Gregory C. Johnson, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "It's a little bit like we've had the freezer door open for a while and it's helped to cool the planet," Johnson said. But even while that freezer has been open, background temperatures have continued to rise. Now the freezer is closed, everything is hotter than before.
Later CNN adds that some scientists are concerned "climate change might be progressing in ways climate models have not predicted." One surprising reason could be the reduction of aerosols in the atmosphere. In 2020, regulations were introduced to limit the amount of sulfur in the fuel ships used — a policy aimed at addressing air pollution. Though air pollution has a significant impact on human health, it also acts as an artificial sunscreen and reflects sunlight away from the Earth. One theory is the absence of aerosols may have turned up the heat, said Karina von Schuckmann [an oceanographer at Mercator Ocean International in France].
Temperatures have fallen since their peak in April — as they naturally do in the spring — but they are still higher than they have ever been on record for this time of year.... The record may not seem huge — it's nearly two-tenths of a degree higher than the previous record in 2016 — but given how much heat is needed to warm up this huge body of water, "it's a massive amount of energy," Matthew England, professor of ocean and climate dynamics at the University of New South Wales, Australia, told CNN... Some scientists are concerned the scale of these new records could mark the start of an alarming trend. Others say record-breaking temperatures like these are always concerning but to be expected given the human-caused climate crisis.
All agree the consequences are likely to be significant. Warmer oceans bleach coral, kill marine life, increase sea level rise and make the ocean less efficient at absorbing planet-warming pollution — the warmer oceans get, the more the planet will heat.
The science leader at the British Antarctic Survey told CNN that "it's probably too early" to blame El Niño." In fact, the world just emerged from a 3-year La Niña cooling event in March. So instead, CNN gets a different explanation fro Gregory C. Johnson, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "It's a little bit like we've had the freezer door open for a while and it's helped to cool the planet," Johnson said. But even while that freezer has been open, background temperatures have continued to rise. Now the freezer is closed, everything is hotter than before.
Later CNN adds that some scientists are concerned "climate change might be progressing in ways climate models have not predicted." One surprising reason could be the reduction of aerosols in the atmosphere. In 2020, regulations were introduced to limit the amount of sulfur in the fuel ships used — a policy aimed at addressing air pollution. Though air pollution has a significant impact on human health, it also acts as an artificial sunscreen and reflects sunlight away from the Earth. One theory is the absence of aerosols may have turned up the heat, said Karina von Schuckmann [an oceanographer at Mercator Ocean International in France].
Easy fix (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ignore the Problem! I am sure that will make it go away, right? Oh, and look, we already have the first moron that thinks this is a really good strategy.
Re: (Score:1)
Just ignore the Problem! I am sure that will make it go away, right? Oh, and look, we already have the first moron that thinks this is a really good strategy.
At first, I thought that you were referring to 'the first moron' as Donald Trump. But unlike many people who apparently believe history began when DT became president, I know that you're much older than that, given your slashdot user id.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the first post under the story here.
As to politicians that practice wilful ignorance, denial and simple non-understanding regarding climate change, there are tons of them. You do not get far in politics by being generally smart, insightful or having personal integrity. You get far by a deep desire for power, the ability to corrupt others and by being smart enough about your own corruption to not get easily caught and by ignoring anything that does not bring you votes in the short term.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if it was ONLY politicians, but I've seen the same on YT channels that deal with weather. Smoking, COVID, and now climate change we have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the facts.
Re: Easy fix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are so utterly clueless as to the actual facts it is staggering. At the same time you regurgitate misinformation and lies. Please shut up right now, you are doing evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, this moron probably believes the world was created 7000 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, humans will just follow the migrating herds that we hunt for food and other resources to wherever they end up.
Just like people did for hundreds of thousands of years.
I'm sure our hunter-gatherer lifestyle will survive.
Shame about the 99.99% of humanity that has embraced a non-migratory lifestyle supported by domestic agriculture though. There may be some problem fo
Re: Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not unwind 300 million years of climate over the next century. Because that would be bad for human civilization.
Re: Easy fix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is neither thinking nor analyzing.
"The whole earth has been bitch warmer than it is now for 90% of its history", even when adjusted for idiocy, is an irrelevant statement. For 90% of its history, humans weren't here. From our point of view (here comes the analysis) 90% of its history was spent just getting things ready for us, like for example producing the fossil fuels that we were "supposed" to use bootstrapping our heavy industry into space so that we didn't have to foul our own nest beyond repair, an
Re: Easy fix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm mocking your idiotic straw man, and you're trying to rebuild it?
Our rate of warming is on the order of ~10ky natural/100y unnatural, hence the rocket ship.
Who the fuck ever argued that the Earth is at one of its temperature extremes?
Re: (Score:2)
Ocean temperature rise is not a problem
Everyone who knows anything about this disagrees with you. Why should we believe you know more about this than everyone who actually knows something? The appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, but even moreso your appeal to ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Nullis en verba
That was the motto of the royal society. Trust no one. Prove it. You want to tell me temperature rise is a problem? Prove it. You think a 6c change in the earth will exterminate humanity? Prove it. Why should you believe me? You shouldn't. But you shouldn't believe "everyone who knows anything about this" either.
Re: (Score:2)
As to politicians that practice wilful ignorance, denial and simple non-understanding regarding climate change, there are tons of them.
I'm guessing those politicians actually do understand, but just don't care as any solutions would require difficult decisions that would endanger their party/candidacies and long-term efforts lasting beyond any potential terms in office. In other words, it's better for them short/medium-term to simply kick the can down the road and leave office when things go south.
Re: Easy fix (Score:2)
I have some thoughts on how to build guillotines with a low carbon footprint.
Re:Easy fix (Score:4)
I will gain some satisfaction from watching things go to shit knowing I was correct.
So many people are so concerned about themselves that they're content to live in a worse world so long as their ranking in it increases.
Believe it or not, I'd be a hell of a lot MORE satisfied if the world's selfish idiots would just cooperate based on the best available knowledge and agree to do what is best for humanity as a whole. I'd like to die knowing my grandchildren will grow up in a world that offers better opportunities for a good life than mine did.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to die knowing my grandchildren will grow up in a world that offers better opportunities for a good life than mine did.
That ship has sailed though, even if most people don't realize it. Given the inertia of CO2 already in the atmosphere, and if we were to really take action now (and not pat ourselves on the back because we do a bit more renewables, while at the same time hitting new all-time highs to CO2 emissions) you can maybe hope for better opportunities not for your grandchildren, but for your grand-grand-grand-grand-grandchildren. At best.
I do feel the same about the rest of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Full conversion to electric, oil will still be used for all sorts of other things, but if everything (plains, trains and automobiles) goes electric that's step one.
With everyone running on batteries, we can then focus on replacing our power generation with nuclear - common tech is not ideal, the newer stuff will give us more juice for longer and less waste so this isn't just "build more nuke plants" but "build better, smaller, distributed nuclear power production capability and share tech with any nation ca
Re: Easy fix (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense. You need to top thinking of it as a fixed installation. All that matters is effort to produce a certain storage capacity for a year of use. If they live short, make them easy to replace and easy to recycle. If they live very long, the opposite. It is an engineering question. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a battery farm you have to replace every 5 years is that replacement is easy.
Re: Easy fix (Score:1)
Alarming trend (Score:3, Insightful)
these new records could mark the start of an alarming trend
For the world outside the U.S. -the U.S. refused to collab or sign any climate agreements, cos who doesn't like the sun or oil, right- the alarming trend started over 20y ago.
This isn't just late to the party, the party is about to be over.
Now, stick those heads back in the sand and while your asses get fried.
Re: (Score:2)
"but don't let facts get in the way of a good whataboutism post."
he said, after clumsily cherry-picking one fact to write a good whataboutism post in reply to something he wrongly interpreted as whataboutism.
and then people say slashdot is boring ...
Re:Alarming trend (Score:5, Informative)
When in doubt, blame it on the US, and ignore China, India, and Middle Eastern countries building tons of coal/oil burning plants. Even redneck states like Texas have a surprising amount of their power generated from solar and wind. China, on the other hand, doesn't really care...
Hello Anonymous Coward.
May I point you to this diagram [wikipedia.org], which shows the cumulative carbon dioxide (also known as CO2) emissions by country between 1850 and 2021. I am linking you a diagram, because even a child should be able to read it.
What can we see from it? Well, that the USA emitted ~510 billion tonnes of CO2, while at the same time China emitted ~290 tonnes of CO2. In our universe, and with what we know about Mathematics, 510 > 290.
So even though China is now emitting more CO2 than the USA, the situation we are in right now is more the fault of the USA than China... And don't tell me we didn't know about it before, the effect of greenhouse gases have been known since more than 50 years.
but don't let facts get in the way of a good whataboutism post.
Indeed.
Re:Alarming trend (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the US raped more people than China in the past, but China rapes more people than the US now.
If we're trying to stop rape, where should we put our focus?
Maybe the point here isn't saving the world from CO2 in the future, but punishing people for CO2 emitted in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
So, the US raped more people than China in the past, but China rapes more people than the US now.
If we're trying to stop rape, where should we put our focus?
That's a problematic metaphor. Most obviously a small to moderate amount of CO2 emissions are not really a problem and are still somewhat essential for maintaining our modern state of living.
Rapes... on the other hand, not great in any quantity.
Also, historical CO2 is still causing most of its damage. Historical rapes, still have long term repercussions, but they certainly decline over time.
Which again, really ruins the metaphor for the argument you're trying to make.
Maybe the point here isn't saving the world from CO2 in the future, but punishing people for CO2 emitted in the past.
If you're looking at who created the pro
Re: (Score:2)
So, we fix the problem of the people doing the most rape today, by making the people who did the most rape in the past responsible for fixing the problem?
Does the US have a moral obligation to bear primary responsibility for fixing the problem, by using military force to stop China from making the problem worse? If the only way to save the world from CO2 is to use military force to stop China from emitting, is it morally justified to demand the US pay for that military action?
Of course there are disparate
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are basically saying is that China, who has increased rapes so the average person rapes 3 times now and America has cut back from 10 rapes to 7, we need to nuke China as soon they'll be up to half the rapes per person as Americans?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you always use nukes to end rapes?
The question is, in a world of limited resources, where do you put your efforts? Do you put more police in a city that only has 100 people and 100 rapes, or do you put more police in the city that has 10 million people and 10 thousand rapes?
Which policy do you think stops more rape?
Re: (Score:2)
You brought up military force, to quote
Does the US have a moral obligation to bear primary responsibility for fixing the problem, by using military force to stop China from making the problem worse? If the only way to save the world from CO2 is to use military force to stop China from emitting, is it morally justified to demand the US pay for that military action?
Maybe I read it wrong, text is not the best way to communicate sometimes.
Anyways, we're not talking rapes but rather waste. Should we concentrate on those with hardly nothing to reduce them to nothing or those who can easily do things like drive a smaller vehicle with barely changing their lifestyle.
Using your rape example, if the 100 people and 100 rapes is really violent and the 10 thousand rapes are actually inappropriate touching, which is worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so we're in a position where 2 billion people with hardly nothing are going to destroy the world with CO2, but there are 400 million people with massive wealth who could dramatically decrease their quality of life to show remorse for what they've done in the past, but even eliminating their CO2 by 100% will still end up with a world destroyed by CO2.
I suppose I can understand why people want to force others to show remorse, even if such an action isn't effective - the symbolism of remorse, even if for
Re: (Score:2)
So considering that the average American produces 4 times CO2 then the average Chinese and what 10 times more CO2 then the average Indian and even more compared to the average African, it's those that should cut back even more and you should never take responsibility for owning stolen property.
Re: (Score:2)
Every square inch of land ever claimed has been stolen from someone at some time. Every human on the planet has ancestors who have done unspeakable evil to someone else's ancestors. We can all, as literal genetic cousins, take collective responsibility for all the theft and destruction over the course of human history.
Maybe instead of attacking the average Americans, why don't we attack the Al Gores, John Kerrys, and Leonardo Dicaprios, who produce 400 times more CO2 than the average chinese, first?
My gue
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse things, the elites are elites and hardly liberal, unless you're talking classical liberal, then they all are, with most simply working to have more riches and fuck the common person, and if they have to pretend to support the common person, they will pretend and there will be people who actually believe that the billionaire cares about the common person rather then power.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. The elites who are demanding symbolic CO2 sacrifices by the US middle class are virtue signaling on the backs of the plebes.
Re: (Score:2)
Quantaman's answer [slashdot.org] already provides a very good explanation of why the rape metaphor is not adequate.
If you really really want to make a rape metaphor, you could potentially put it like this: the US raped more people than China, and currently rapes more people per capita than China. China rapes more people than the US now, but per capita still less.
Now, let's take the point of view of someone from China. I am not sure someone who:
a) raped more people in total and in the past than a chinese person
b) currentl
Re: (Score:2)
So, I guess the US should be the one to pay for the military action necessary to stop China from emitting in the future?
After all, if you really want to clean up the mess in the bathroom from raw sewage bubbling from the toilet, you don't start by mopping the floor, you start by stopping the introduction of more sewage, right?
Or is the intent to have the US "clean up its mess" while China "catches up" by making more of a mess simultaneously?
I get the feeling that people are trying to deflect China's respons
Re: (Score:2)
I get the feeling that people are trying to deflect China's responsibility to the US.
It's obvious the US has some responsibility based on its past actions, and continues to have some based on current actions.
One of those current actions is continuing to trade with countries without putting requirements on their environmental policies.
Nobody is trying to let China off the hook. People are looking to the US for leadership but it continues to be gutless and ruled by moneyed interests intent on preserving the status quo. Continuing to give money to China for cheap manufacturing - which is cheap
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if the world really wants US leadership. Would China appreciate the destruction of their economy through US trade policy, or US military intervention, so long as it was in the name of saving the world from CO2?
Is there any country with the moral authority to destroy other countries in order to save the world from CO2?
Re: (Score:2)
After all, if you really want to clean up the mess in the bathroom from raw sewage bubbling from the toilet, you don't start by mopping the floor, you start by stopping the introduction of more sewage, right?
Again, bad metaphor. You are really good at them it appears.
CO2 emissions are not "raw sewage". Someone emits them. So a better metaphor would be: you really want to clean up the mess in the bathroom from people shitting on the floor, you should start by having the people who shit the most in the past and are responsible for most of the pile of shit on the actual floor to start leading by example (i.e.: stop shitting on the floor) and clean up their mess.
Especially when on the other side of the room, there
Re: (Score:2)
Even using your analogy of shitting on the floor, the point holds - are you looking for a clean floor, or are you just looking to punish people?
Before you clean the floor, you need to stop the additional shitting, no matter who is doing it, otherwise, the floor never gets clean.
You seem to want a solution that is fair, rather than effective.
Re: (Score:2)
are you looking for a clean floor, or are you just looking to punish people?
Why are you talking about punishment? Why do you see cleaning up your mess as punishment? If you throw your garbage on the street, and I see you, and tell you to get it back to put it in a garbage can, this is not punishment. And if you start screaming after me when I drop 1/6th of what you threw on the street, this is just you being an hypocrite.
Before you clean the floor, you need to stop the additional shitting, no matter who is doing it
Exactly. There are three ways to do that:
- either you reduce the number of people shitting
- or you reduce the amount of shitting per people
- the third way being a
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you think china is reducing its population, or its CO2 footprint per capita?
I think you'll actually find the opposite - as China grows its middle class, CO2 per capita is increasing, and China continues to grow faster than the US in population. India has recently caught up to China, IIRC.
In any case, if you really believe that CO2 is going to destroy the world, any action that doesn't stop China is purely symbolic. Reducing the number of people, or the CO2 per capita, is going to require violence, t
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies - you're right - I had no idea that another genocide was in progress again in China.
https://www.macrotrends.net/co... [macrotrends.net]
That shows a .02% decline in population - I had no idea they were killing that many people.
Maybe if China keeps killing its people, then you're right, they'll have a lower CO2 footprint.
Re: Alarming trend (Score:2)
Where do you think the biggest oil companies in the world are located? The ones we know have been aware of the dangers since 1980 (Shell papers) and heavily funded scientists to debt anything was going wrong? People like the Koch brothers live in the USA, not China.
China is well aware it has a problem, but they can't shut off their economy just to solve a problem mainly created by the West, and about which the main emitter is not doing a whole lot to reduce it, let alone solve it.
The EU wanted to introduce
Re: (Score:2)
So, I think your final position is "they can't shut off their economy just to solve a problem", which implies that the problem simply won't be solved.
And if the problem won't be solved, it seems the only thing left is punishing those who caused the problem, instead of fixing the problem. Which may make one feel morally superior, and indulge the instinct of vengeance, but it doesn't seem productive.
Re: (Score:2)
But there are 3x as many chinese, at least - so you're talking 24 tons of raw sewage vs. 14.
The global atmosphere doesn't care about per capita, it only cares about the gross #s.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't expect anyone to go first - I don't believe that CO2 emissions are going to destroy the planet or civilization.
But if you *did*, the only rational thing to do would be to destroy Chinese coal plants with military force, at the same time we shut down the coal industry in the western world through taxation and economic destruction.
If we're going to lead by example, to save the world and future civilization, I'm afraid given the premise of catastrophic CO2, war, tyranny, and communism is th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess there are two questions you might ask:
1) who did the most damage in the totality of the past
2) who did the most damage in the last year
#2 seems to let us know who is likely to do the most damage in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
The third question is whether we measure by land area or per capita. If we're going for land area, that means us Canadians can put out 10X more CO2 and still be good. We're bigger then China and the USA, smaller then Russia though so they can put out 20X CO2 and still be good.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the global CO2 level really care about land area or per capita?
If John Kerry emits 1 million tons of CO2, but he manages to top 10 million people from emitting 1 ton of CO2, hasn't he saved the globe from 9 million tons of CO2, even though he emits 1 million times more than the 10 million people he stopped?
Separate what you think is fair from what you think is effective. They're not often the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If those people are unduly suffering after getting cut back from 2 to 1 ton of CO2 so they freeze when he could have switched from driving a hummer to something smaller and didn't it is going to come across as unfair and people will revolt.
Unluckily the way things are you can only cut back so far without undue hardship.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if we use the "undue hardship" criteria, doesn't the world still end in CO2 disaster?
It seems that to accomplish the environmental goals requested, we need war, tyranny, and worldwide communism. Token gestures by 380 million people giving up their SUVs and using ebikes instead can't possibly solve the problem. It would be virtue signaling at best...or maybe at its worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there are a variety of natural disasters as well as man made disasters that would stop it, otherwise, all we can do is slow things down at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
15 days to slow the spread? :)
My guess is that our token gestures would, at most, delay the inevitable by days, or perhaps months.
It's also likely that complete communist tyranny and war would delay the inevitable by months, or maybe years, but not decades.
Just imagine how much uncertainty there is in the US economy from one year to the next. Now, predict the US economy over 10 years. 50 years. 100 years.
Now, add to that economic uncertainty, the uncertainty of climate models :)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about with "15 days to slow the spread", we've had 40+ years to slow the spread and the response has been mis-information and businesses with their business model threatened doing things like slipping Greenpeace money to prevent things like nukes being built.
And yes, we're likely to go further down the authoritarian slope further and further, seems to be happening all over the world. Don't know why you're focused on communism, something that has never existed in a large model and a coup
Re: (Score:2)
"15 days to slow the spread" represents the mistaken government assessment of effective COVID policy. The takeaway is that you can't trust the government assessments that any of their policies will in fact do anything close to what they claim - including the slowing of CO2 accumulation in any measurable amount.
Funny that you would mention Greenpeace and nukes. I agree with you on that point whole-heartedly. I'd probably even throw Margaret Thatcher's fight with coal miners in that same category :)
I guess
Re: (Score:2)
So, do we first stop Al Gore, John Kerry, and Leonardo DiCaprio, before destroying blue-collar american workers, or is the end goal a bunch of elites, and everyone else as poor as paupers in china?
Re: (Score:2)
So, the US raped more people than China in the past, but China rapes more people than the US now.
If we're trying to stop rape, where should we put our focus?
Maybe the point here isn't saving the world from CO2 in the future, but punishing people for CO2 emitted in the past.
If each American is raping 14 people and each Chinese person 8 [ourworldindata.org] we should start with the Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
That is, unless, there are 3x chinese than americans (24 vs. 14).
The global CO2 level doesn't care about per capita - what may be fair in this instance is definitely not effective.
And if that's the point, punish the US for it's past, and doom the planet in the future if that's what it takes, well, then at least that's consistent.
But I'm not sure if people are really thinking through what it would take to effectively combat CO2 levels. The amount of death, destruction, and suffering required to accomplish t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I think you're trying to make things fair - which I suppose is a laudable goal if you believe that wealth differentials must be remediated by force. But what you're asking for is simply not going to actually be effective if you believe CO2 emissions are going to destroy the earth and all civilization.
Let's take just 1 John Kerry, or Leonardo DiCaprio, and consider them a country. They're raping us with CO2 like they're no tomorrow - private jets, multi-acre mansions, wealth beyond compare. Do we g
Re: (Score:2)
So you're agreeing with me. We should focus on the people who are most responsible. The people who emit the most.
There's this collection of people that emit 14 tons each why not focus on them rather that that other group of people emitting 8?
Or is your plan some kind of collective punishment because one group has more people and you don't like big groups of people?
Split that big group of people into 4 "countries" and the problem goes away if I'm understanding you "argument" correctly. What's so special a
Re: (Score:2)
You've got three choices:
1) stop the chinese who are polluting more in total than anyone else;
2) stop the average US blue collar worker who are polluting less in total than china, but more per capita than the chinese
3) stop the average US liberal elite, who are polluting less in total than US blue collar workers, but more per capita than the US blue collar workers
Where do you suggest we start, and why?
Re: (Score:2)
Take out a sharpie and draw lines on China and make 4 groups.
Now you have 5 similar sized groups of about 330 -350 million people. One of those groups is polluting much more than the rest (the American group).
You can only stop 1 group. Which group do you stop?
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
I think your question includes the answer - if you can only stop one group, you can't solve the problem, so stopping that group is simply virtue signaling, not effective action.
Take out a sharpie and draw lines on the United States, and make say, 350 groups of a million people each. One of those groups is polluting much more than the rest (the elite liberal group). You can only stop 1 group. Which group do you stop? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that 5 choices?
China 1
China 2
China 3
China 4
US 1
If stopping one group won't solve the problem, why stop any group?
Re: (Score:2)
We're not up to solving the problem yet.
We are still at the stage of showing you who is causing more of the problem, so you know where to focus your efforts. Baby steps.
You're trying to cheat by selecting who goes into each group. Which shows you already know which people are causing the most damage. But still, poor people in another country was your initial target.
Let's go with your idea and apply it to America. You want to lower America's (or any countries') emissions.
Do you try to stop the blue co
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the exercise is to show you why per country is a stupid idea.
If stopping one group won't solve the problem, why stop any group?
It won't. So why are you so focused on stopping China?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. So, if we stop the most CO2 emitting human in the US (pretend for a moment it's Al Gore), is that going to solve the CO2 problem, or is it just sacrificing someone at the altar of virtue signaling?
If individual people matter, what do we do with individuals who disagree with us? Do we stop them with violence?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me be clear - I'm not worried about CO2. I think China is using the CO2 trope to weaken the US and gain world power.
Would you rather live in a Chinese Empire, or an American Empire?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll posit that the problem is impossible to solve without incredible violence, a dramatic loss of freedom, and untold suffering. Even if we head there with baby steps, the cure is worse than the disease.
I don't think that US blue collar workers should be subjected to expensive, unreliable energy. Neither do I believe that Chinese should be subjected to expensive, unreliable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that the USA bought far and away more of the goods whose production created that pollution than any other nation...
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't you a little myopic here? This chart [worldometers.info] has China currently emitting more than twice the US. Shouldn't take them long to catch up and it's certainly not helping things in the near term. Or do you want to switch to per capita?
Based on that data, it should take ~41 more years for China to have emitted the same amount of CO2 than the US.
So, on the topic of the article, which is "ocean temperature breaking records" and "an alarming trend", USA is still more to blame than China, and will be for the next 41 years. What can't you understand about that? It's basic maths.
Also, the 41 years thing is if we consider than China and USA CO2 emissions will stay the same, or at least have the same differential (i.e.: China is emitting twice mo
Re: Alarming trend (Score:2)
Also, the new coal plants in China are mainly very old ones. A modern coal plant should be able to operate a lot cleaner than an old one. It's not great, but also not as bad as people seem to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Alarming trend (Score:2)
Exactly. Or we'd leave all responsibility with the 10 largest countries and countries like Belgium, the Netherlands or Israel would need to make zero effort.
The effort is pro capita, not per country. And pro capita, the US is doing really bad.
What's the big deal? (Score:4, Funny)
Just drop a giant ice cube into the ocean [youtube.com] every now and then, thus solving the problem once and for all.
Re: (Score:2)
- "Once and for all!"
So why is this a big deal? (Score:1)
Simple: It is a massive, large-scale effect of global warming that nobody anticipated. You know, one of those things that can and will make things _worse_ than the current predictions. We likely will find a buch of them and they are a reason why just about doing enough to reach some already very generous climate goals is a strategy that leads right into disaster.
Re: (Score:1)
they are a reason why just about doing enough to reach some already very generous climate goals is a strategy that leads right into disaster.
Remind me, are you the guy who is very vehemently against anything nuclear-related? You are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Relevancy? Oh, you are pushing an _ideology_! Sorry, but your cult is not connected to the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
You are pushing an ideology ("moar renewables! even if we emit more CO2!"), whereas I am explaining we need to focus on the current end goal: reducing CO2 emissions to reduce the impacts of climate change, our biggest threat at the moment.
With that end goal in mind, nuclear emits less CO2 per kWh than solar (~11g vs 40g) and about the same as wind.
By opposing nuclear, you are directly opposing that end goal, thus making you responsible for ocean temperature rises linked to climate change.
yes, but extremists do not care (Score:2)
We will see plenty of posters here that will scream that America is to blame. Yet, they ignore their own words.
Assume that ONLY CO2 / capita that is important.
Here we see that America is down on the lsit at #15 and dropping. [europa.eu] Yet, China is at 33 and rising. fast.
So, are the top 10 / capita the ones to blame? If America is to blame, then we are extremists not screaming about Canada and Australia with higher levels?
Perhaps it is the total amount? By far,
a source of heat (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This ain't Mama Earth's fault.
Scientists ahoy (Score:2)
Dear Scientists: I see you are becoming alarmed on at least a daily basis. This is not healthy. I recommend Xanax for a more calm life.
Re: (Score:1)
10% for the big guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a wall of crap-text is that? ChatGPT?
Re: (Score:2)
You: Alex, I'd like Paragraph Breaks for $500.
Alex: The answer is "it makes reading easier"?
You: Ummmm...What are long run on sentences that no one will bother reading?
Alex: Ooooo....close. St. Peter what can we give the boy?
St. Peter: A one-way trip 'down there'...(pulls out iPhone) Beelz, we need ya up here.
The dulcet tones of AC/DC start to arise: ....down....party time....highway....
Beelzebub busts up through the floor boards.
Beelz: What can I do you for St. Pete?
St. Peter: I have a new customer for you
Re: (Score:2)
i think he asked chatgpt 4 times what is a termocline and just concatenated the answers together.
must be a new art form, underlining the futility of existence by monotonic repetition of bits scraped from textbooks in the vastness of the internets.
Re: (Score:2)