But you do understand? As I've noted many times - even in myself - reason often plays second fiddle to emotions. The science of man's contribution to global warming is overwhelming, yet you persist with the silly arguments that climate is always changing (which is true, but not like over the past 100 years), and that money has made scientists dishonest.
Maybe, maybe not. Agriculture (as well as hunting and fishing) may be a lot more difficult in the future, as droughts become more common in some areas (and floods in others) and forest fires hit more of the globe, and the ocean currents stop moving. As long as you don't eat (or drink, or breathe), you'll be fine. Coastal flooding is a minor problem compared to the more serious changes that have been taking place.
You can also make a chocolate mousse with a double dose of cognac. Just keep it away from the kids . . . and open flames.
As to agriculture, if the pace is gradual enough, what you may see is an adaptation of places in the US and Canada and things generally move northward relative to the crop composition. Fishing could be an issue, and already is somewhat with depletion. I’m not sure how much hunting is really a major source of food. I’m sure these things will be much more difficult in those third world countries that do these locally. I suspect the first world will adapt, although there will be disruption.
Like all wealthy people, no need to worry about today or even tomorrow. Just move. Just get bottled water. Just install more AC. Just have your chef fix something different for all meals today. In fact, CC is a boon for the wealthy. They have the resources to both survive and profit. Why stop it? Good for business. It’s an inherent contradiction that has few capitalist solutions. Maybe none.
Yeah, that's a good point. Trump buys all these air conditioners and we have to breathe the carbon emissions. That MF'er.
Trump likely rich, not wealthy. More like the Walton Dynasty. Or Exxon/Mobile, the subject of the thread. What would be their interest in addressing this, and the $450B in investors? It would be an irrational choice, thus the insidious coverup. It also explains why people are more than willing to sign on to nonsense. I also will not suffer the consequences. It is about people that aren’t even people yet. Quite the paradox that a particular subset of society is all about “kids kids kids”, but only for particular personal, immediate gain. And that point is general, not about you, necessarily.
They were over 100 years too late... LMFAO! That all begs the children's question, by the youngest among us, usually traveling just through linear space... "Are we there yet?" But you know the relationship between space/time... so in a very real way it's ironic that childish minds are still asking that question even today. Are we there yet? I guess... it depends on what your definition if "IS" is. No... But the road to understanding climate change stretches back to the tweed-clad middle years of the 19th century—when Victorian-era scientists conducted the first experiments proving that runaway CO2 could, one day, cook the planet. The answer, he proposed, must be the atmosphere: It was somehow preventing heat from escaping. In an 1824 paper, he hypothesized that gases in the atmosphere must create barriers that acted to trap heat. Fourier didn’t yet know what molecular mechanisms were trapping the heat. But in an 1837 paper for The American Journal of Science and Arts, he surmised that over a long period of time, the amount of heat held in by the atmosphere could change — altered by both the Earth’s natural evolution and human activity. “The establishment and progress of human society, and the action of natural powers, may, in extensive regions, produce remarkable changes in the state of the surface, the distribution of the waters, and the great movements of the air,” he predicted. “Such effects, in the course of some centuries, must produce variations in the mean temperature for such places.” The answer began to emerge in 1856, when the results of a remarkable experiment were unveiled. Eunice Newton Foote, an amateur scientist and prominent suffragette, for the first time tested the heat-trapping abilities of different gases. She took several glass cylinders, put a thermometer in the bottom, and then filled them with gas combinations ranging from very thin air to thicker air, humid air, and air with “carbonic acid,” or what we now call CO2. Foote placed the cylinders in the sun to heat up, then in the shade to cool down. When she observed how the temperatures changed, she found that the cylinder with CO2 and water vapor became hotter than regular air, and retained its heat longer in the shade. In other words, wet air and CO2 were heat-trapping gases. How 19th Century Scientists Predicted Global Warming - JSTOR Daily
The "green house gas" levels under president Trump went down while he was POTUS, not that CO2 has as much to do with higher temperatures as DEFORESTATION DOES. The weather lately is NOT related to real long term climate cycles. But of you really want to turn up the heat on we earthlings, and cause real death an devastation, then keep cutting all the trees down... and destroy all the rain forest while you're too.
I think Exxon wanted to help, but Trump was in it for himself, so he stopped all the work Exxon was doing on the environment. Trump was more concerned with parties at Mar-A-Lago than helping kids breathe clean, carbon free air.
What's with the Trump fixation? The dude is facing some serious charges and is not expected to ever be relevant again.
I know, he face a serious of charges, but I fear red states will push him over the top and he will rule again with an iron fist. But little does he know, he has a home on the coast and soon, he will be under water. So it don't matter.
Deforestation is definitely a factor. Last time I checked it was estimated to be 15-20% or the climate change impact. So I’m not sure how you came up with the assertion that it is a bigger impact. But nonetheless, it is real. The 15-20% may be just the Amazon, perhaps the entire deforestation is a bigger number. Here is the unfortunate truth. The Amazon has historically been a positive offset to reduce co2. However with overall warning and more fires in the Amazon that may no longer be true. Bolsonaro, the Brazilian version of Trump, was a disaster for the Amazon. As to current weather cycles, hotter temperatures are a result of a steadily increasing climate change trend, but this year it is exacerbated by El Niño and a cyclical increase in solar activity. Wouldn’t surprise me if next year is also brutal but then levels off for a few years, although still hotter than hell.
Trump is definitely a factor. Here's the unfortunate truth: Trump set us back 75 years and it'll take 150 years to undo the damage Trump did. That's why I urge any of you who live close to the coast or even a small exclusive island, sell now. Move inland. It's not worth the misery. Trump.
Here is an interesting trend: as disasters (wildfires, floods, hurricanes, extreme heat, etc.) become more common, Hundreds of thousands of Americans are moving into disaster-prone areas every year. Land tends to be cheaper in those areas, and building codes tend to be weaker. Study reveals a dangerous trend that could be putting homeowners in harm’s way: ‘Near-term concerns tend to trump any … risks’ Florida seems to have strong building codes for houses near coastal areas, but the codes aren't strong enough with regard to building the land or house up high enough to prevent flooding during a hurricane's storm surge. You can build a one-story house in a reclaimed swamp on the coast with no questions asked. The Fort Myers area is a perfect example.
More news on battery development. Scientists discovered that sweetening the battery mixture by the correct amount increases peak power of "flow batteries" by 60%. Researchers discover shocking new ingredient that could make better batteries: ‘This could help improve and protect our grid’
