And it will increasingly be clear that it's a false choice. I'm not sure how you price in massive continuous instability and migration on a global scale, but you can imagine that the resulting global security threats and devastation would be unimaginably huge. Yet, none of that matters if you can't feel it, see it, or experience it directly. People will naturally go back to their rational reasonings on doing nothing vs doing something. It will take a punch in your gut directly for change and with the slow pace of climate-changing, the "frog in a slow boil" effect will likely mean we, the global community, will continue to ride the massive inertia of the global economy and the current way of life. Someone will figure it out, just not me.
Lol, the argument that it's environment v economy is so 20 years ago. Life or death? It's pretty simple now.
For people who want some interesting deep-dive science, this is a great (and long) article from Physics Today about the available techniques for negative carbon emissions (how to not just stop the rising CO2 levels but bring them down, which will be necessary at some point if we care). Negative emissions. You have to wade through an intro surveying the state of the climate, but it's really interesting to get into the methods of carbon capture.
in some sense a companion piece, on the politics and economics of climate science https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...mberg-corrupted-climate-science/#665a7346702c
Would be interesting to know roughly how much ash that is relative to the eruption that caused the Year With No Summer. At some point I would think it would have a noticable short term effect. Maybe I underappreciate the amount of ash a big volcano can spit out.
The estimate I saw for Mount Tambora was 24 cubic miles of rock sent into the atmosphere. No idea if they have a method to estimate particulates resulting from wildfires. I imagine it could be done, but you'd have to take some variables into consideration over a huge geographical area.
It's a very bad situation, but the Australians can respond with economic and development regulations, along with lifestyle changes, if they really care. It's startling how linear and systematic the progress of heat waves and fires in Australia have been. Nature has been as nice as it can in allowing humans to make a change if they actually want to.
I'd wager the population hits that 11.2B mark long before 2100 , it more than tripled in the 70 years of the "atomic age" Definitely a huge part of the problem and one that literally no politician wants to talk about. The elephant in the room is debt. Cant support or continue to expand upon that debt without a robust growing economy , cant have a robust growing economy without an ever increasing number of willing workers and consumers.
on hazard reduction fire policy in NSW and elsewhere http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/fi...ction-to-stop-fires-labor-says-carbon-market/
"Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming": https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467619886266
So at what point do we cut the bullshit politics and admit climate change is real and pursue policy to address the problem. Not everything has to be him versus her or Democrat versus Republican.
Well, in Australia, apparently not till after the whole place literally burns to the ground and the PM comes back from his vacation
gotta take it one crisis at a time, Brian. We could have played smarter, and that falls in me as coach.
