I think at this point in the game, it's seemingly apparent that not enough countries of any consequence give a shit. So it'll be left to the ones that do to clean up the mess and start battling forward.
Shrugging and saying "oh well, there's nothing we can do about it, may as well just carry on as normal" doesn't help anyone.
I saw a promising article recently about a new design for artificial photosynthesis that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide with the help of a photovoltaic cell to a burnable fuel. Apparently It's more efficient than natural photosynthesis, though by some accounts not as efficient as current photovoltaic cells. It would be exciting if that could be adapted to help pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and help regulate greenhouse gases.
It's silly to blame China & India when US with quarter the population of India, is and has been the biggest producer of green-house gases, with little to no signs of improvement. US is the inventor of the concept of climate-change denial.
On the other hand India and China not just accept climate-change and its impact on environment, but have shown willingness to take positive steps.
China has 4x the number of people. Until the US produces 1/4 of the emissions, i don't think we can complain. Also consider, that for decades, the US was the biggest emitter. We created the problem.
We should be taking a leading role. As we drive the costs lower, others will follow. China already uses more solar and wind power.
China is developing and it's impossible in the current economical scenario to do that without ramping up emissions, the US, EU and other developed countries had the luck to do that when we didn't knew (or didn't care) about this. It's easier for a developed nation to curb their emissions, just look here to the EU in general and even more to countries like Sweden or other Scandinavians, France and even Germany doesn't look so bad compared to the US.
We can point fingers all we want to developing nations but they are only the main contributors RIGHT NOW, historically the US and EU have much more to blame. But blame alone right now will not solve anything.
China & India have had very little, if any, environmental protection policies or fair labour laws for a long time, so manufacturing was sent overseas just so big corporations could make an extra dollar. Then what? Western countries turn around and try say they're the problem for this mess. It's not right.
Americans were happy to consume their goods for years without putting much thought into the environmental impact large scale consumerism was having.
You're right it seems China & India are at least trying to mitigate the damage done, and really making a mockery of the USA while they're at it. Especially considering so much data about climate change is coming out of NASA.
And, the US doing nothing justifies China and India also doing nothing. It's a team effort, it's important for everyone to show good faith and recognize that this is a challenging issue.
Of course, it's a team effort. And the country that touts itself as a world/team leader on every other front, seems to be leading us all to an apocalypse.
I agree with the sentiment, but not the assumption that "we" can do anything about a celestial phenomenon.
Humans cannot change the oscillating output of a certain nearby star. That is the source of the minuscule changes to the Earth's temperature underway, not human behavior. Contrary to the hysterics of so-called climate scientists (who have been shown, time and time again, to have cherry-picked their data or invented it entirely; aka "data fraud") there is no evidence humans are changing the temperature of the planet.
That being said, China seems to have no regard whatsoever for gross pollution of the earth, skies, and seas. A separate issue but worth addressing.
NASA has fiddled with the data:
`From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”`
If you're not willing to trust data, that makes you religious, not scientific.
Conspiracy theorists are generally beyond help. It's not worth arguing with them. But if you leave it unchallenged, it might lead an uninformed observer to think, "maybe the truth is in the middle." These kinds of posts are best used as a springboard to point impressionable observers to reliable sources of information to help prevent the spread of nonsense.
If they had, and such modification was relevant to the topic at hand, I suspect there would be a discussion about that in the relevant research papers. If the conclusion was as dramatic as you claim it is, it would be mentioned prominently in the IPCC report. It isn't.
There is no "opponent" here. Is that how you see this, as some sort of confrontation? You're taking this way too personally. There is no opponent, it is just a discussion.
I read the document. it is not trustworthy because it uses NASA data, proven to be fraudulent. That is my point.
In academic vernacular, it is and has been for centuries common for a person who is criticizing a given work or statement to be referred to as an opponent. It implies not malice, but an indication that that person is presenting a view or idea that differs from the original idea of the work or statement presented in a way that questions its validity or veracity.
When one is giving a defense of a thesis or dissertation, the professors who hear the defense are referred to as opponents. To suggest that the very professors who one studies and works with throughout ones degree as actually hostile simply because their job is to find flaws in and oppose the points presented is absurd.
Why is it then, that there are now cruise ships going through the Northwest passage, roadways built on permafrost melting in Alaska, coral reefs dying worldwide? NASA invented the concept of global warming 40 years ago for political purposes, secretly recruited every other scientific agency-worldwide to collaborate AND coincidentally, unrelated to the billions of tons of greenhouse gasses we release, the world got warmer?
The thing that bothers me about the current situation is that this trend would continue even if you wiped every trace of mankind from the earth. As is said in the article, natural methane out-gassing will continue regardless of how we curtail our emissions, not to mention CO2 out-gassing that also occurs through volcanic and tectonic vectors.
To combat this problem, we will need a system to actively remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere en mass (something that is very, very hard to do to a magnitude that would actually affect climate change significantly).
A long ways. Even building a solution big enough to match the yearly production of CO2 would be a gargantuan feat of engineering. It takes a prohibitively large amount of energy to capture and process that much gas.
27 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 65.1 ms ] threadShrugging and saying "oh well, there's nothing we can do about it, may as well just carry on as normal" doesn't help anyone.
I saw a promising article recently about a new design for artificial photosynthesis that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide with the help of a photovoltaic cell to a burnable fuel. Apparently It's more efficient than natural photosynthesis, though by some accounts not as efficient as current photovoltaic cells. It would be exciting if that could be adapted to help pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and help regulate greenhouse gases.
The per capita trend is even more troubling with US down ~20% from peak and China on a very strong upward trend.
We should be taking a leading role. As we drive the costs lower, others will follow. China already uses more solar and wind power.
We can point fingers all we want to developing nations but they are only the main contributors RIGHT NOW, historically the US and EU have much more to blame. But blame alone right now will not solve anything.
So, it's more priority's vs need.
China & India have had very little, if any, environmental protection policies or fair labour laws for a long time, so manufacturing was sent overseas just so big corporations could make an extra dollar. Then what? Western countries turn around and try say they're the problem for this mess. It's not right.
Americans were happy to consume their goods for years without putting much thought into the environmental impact large scale consumerism was having.
You're right it seems China & India are at least trying to mitigate the damage done, and really making a mockery of the USA while they're at it. Especially considering so much data about climate change is coming out of NASA.
And, the US doing nothing justifies China and India also doing nothing. It's a team effort, it's important for everyone to show good faith and recognize that this is a challenging issue.
Humans cannot change the oscillating output of a certain nearby star. That is the source of the minuscule changes to the Earth's temperature underway, not human behavior. Contrary to the hysterics of so-called climate scientists (who have been shown, time and time again, to have cherry-picked their data or invented it entirely; aka "data fraud") there is no evidence humans are changing the temperature of the planet.
That being said, China seems to have no regard whatsoever for gross pollution of the earth, skies, and seas. A separate issue but worth addressing.
[edit: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+data+fraud
NASA has fiddled with the data: `From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”`
If you're not willing to trust data, that makes you religious, not scientific.
Edit for specific suggestion, the synthesis report for policymakers is short, easy to read, and extremely illuminating. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_S...
You then pour salt on the wound by using lmgtfy for someone who actually went to the trouble of finding a document that refutes your claim.
This might not be the forum for you, friend.
I read the document. it is not trustworthy because it uses NASA data, proven to be fraudulent. That is my point.
When one is giving a defense of a thesis or dissertation, the professors who hear the defense are referred to as opponents. To suggest that the very professors who one studies and works with throughout ones degree as actually hostile simply because their job is to find flaws in and oppose the points presented is absurd.
To combat this problem, we will need a system to actively remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere en mass (something that is very, very hard to do to a magnitude that would actually affect climate change significantly).