As temperatures bust heat records across the globe and wildfires rage from California to the Arctic, a new report produced annually by more than 500 scientists worldwide found that last year, the carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere reached the highest level "in the modern atmospheric measurement record and in ice core records dating back as far as 800,000 years."
Little Rocket Man!
Let’s get our priorities straight, please.
No doubt Trump would emphasize longer growing seasons in norther areas of the US, milder winters, increased plant growth from higher CO2 levels, the ability of ships to navigate through the Arctic because of open oceans. and increased access to oil and gas in the Arctic. He must be wondering why the “fake news” outlets are stirring up fear over this. He seems to calling for more fossil fuel production to increase the benefits of a warmer world.
A forest fire is a completely normal part of nature, and so if a forest fire comes up over your horizon, are you going to let it burn up your house and your family?
No. You’re going to call the fire department, and also you’ll try to stop it yourself too if that helps.
The permafrost melting is all about nature. Are you going to let it keep melting?
Sure, because it benefits the fossil fuel industry.
On second thought, no, you’re going to demand that your federal government pull together a fire department of sorts. They’re going to go into their labs and come up with environmentally benign solutions. Example: artificially coating a section of the tundra with snow will reflect the sun’s rays back into space just like it used to do for 100 million years before now. Then they’re going to pull together crews of hotshots (er, coldshots) and get out there on the tundra and execute.
All these damn scientists and their sciencey crazy talk. If it ain’t on Fox and Friends, it’s not true!!
What effect has the decimation of the South American Rain Forest had on Global Warming and Climate change? I find reports like this disingenuous for not considering clearing of the rain forest in their analysis. Also, not including the fact that the Earth’s weather is influenced by the Sun’s activity. From time to time the Sun goes silent…Drawing conclusions based solely on the amount of carbon in our atmosphere is folly. Frankly, Nations should be planting trees by the millions because the food of trees and plants is carbon. Perhaps the authors subscribe to eugenics too. Their solution is reduction of the human populations.
Rats and other small mammals survived the asteroid impact’s climate change by burrowing underground. But they’re not picky eaters like humans and can get their moisture from rotten stuff.
No thanks to conservatives, instead of evolving we’ll be devolving into rats.
Maybe it is time you read some Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and get up to speed. Ignorance is bliss but we don’t need bliss, we need rapid action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. .
Gee Frank, tell us what else was left out of this 332 page report you read. Over the last decade or so that can I recall, I don’t think agencies such as NOAA pose “solutions”. They do offer summaries through.
its as predicted and even some in the business community are getting scared, but they created a monster thy cannot control
in New England, the phrase “global warming” was a poor choice of sound bite as most, thinking of high heating bills said “bring it on.” We didn’t emphasize the destabilizing aspect of climate change enough;
even some environmental friends still seem to drive (and fly) everywhere, they seem to think somehow renewable energy will solve all problems;
and hardly anyone left or right talks about skyrocketing human population growth even though it is a mathematical fact that
total emissions = (average amount per person) times (the number of people)
but the second factor is ignored largely to pander to the religious zealots
?..ssooooo you are promoting geoengineering?..
Are you from another planet.>> what climate science have you read?.. Any?..
thank you …. thank you very much…
Hi, I am really bad at math, but I like making questions–so I am wondering how much carbon pollution comes from some of these activities. i.e. cow farts or military hubris,
How much pollution comes from 1 single military plane flying over 1 football game in America x all the military planes flying over all the American football games in 1 American day?
How much carbon pollution came from The MOTHER of all Bombs when it dropped?
How much Presidential pollution comes from i Presidential plane flying to golf courses over i year’s time in America?
How much methane pollution comes from all the BIG diary farms in America in one day?
When the Olympics came to Chia, I was amazed with how blue the skies became when China stopped so much automobile driving. My question is
How many days would it take for Los Angeles , Ca to have breathable air if the freeways were closed down today?
Thanks for anyone who has answers. : )
Ever hear of a search engine? Type your questions into the search engine box and see what you get. If you don’t get good results try refining your search.
I think that person who wants to fight climate change would look at your two variables, average emissions per person and number of people and decide if one is more easier to deal with than the other. I would guess most people would conclude that reducing emissions per person is doable and it would be very difficult affect the number of people.
I believe the answer “too many, too much” applies to all of them.
Time’s running out
But we can’t
Just keep having more kids. It’s fine. They will understand.