Slashdot Mirror

CO2 is also being taken from the atmosphere by the Earth's ecosystem. It's still a net gain but the trend of overall CO2 emission reduction is very clear, there's no way we will reach the level described even if we did nothing but carried on with existing adoption of solar/nuclear power, and electric vehicles.

Can you point out any models that show CO2 levels even close to 1200ppm? Even the worst case I can find is 1000ppm by 2100 (still a long, long ways off and more than enough time to fully integrate renewable energy across most of the world).

That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.

The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.

Actually the quote said the West Side highway would be underwater by 2028 if CO2 hit 560 ppm (we're currently at 410 and by the trend line it isn't going to get anywhere close).

Now I don't know how many climate scientists would agree with that statement, I don't know if James Hansen would still agree with it.

But I literally gave you a link that you claimed to have read and you still got the quote completely wrong.

On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.

Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.

I don't need a participation ribbon for not being gullible.

As I said it's really easy not to get tricked by fake quotes, just have a reasonable model of the world and don't accept convenient facts uncritically.

and the temperatures have dropped dramatically since then.

What?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.co2.earth/global-w...

Yes, I know... CNN is liberal fake news and NASA has also been infiltrated by liberals, as has been the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration... or any scientific organization for that matter.

I simply don't understand - we all live on this planet together. How can people be so short-sighted? How can they think of money before the environment? There's a place for profit in pouring less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It makes me sick to think we're all going to die without having at least *tried* to reverse the next mass extinction event, just because the automobile industry is too fucking lazy to step up and change the way they do things. It's not all about money. We're already fucked at this point (look at co2.earth ), I'm afraid. We've all been trying to play god for way too long now. I just don't get how people can reject the science and think that it's "us vs. them" capitalist mentality bullshit though. I mean, c'mon. Go Bronco's, I guess. Fuck.

CO2 has increased at a MUCH LARGER RATE than has temperature; moreover the shape of the graphs are not really very similar with an increase in temperature rate of increase where co2 rate of increases show a lull.

I'll let you have the last response because I don't think you are really capable of actually understanding this concept yet. Don't worry, when climate scientists are forced to begrudgingly admit this in ten years or so you can say you knew it before they did.

Humans: 35,900 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2014 from fossil fuel burning.