Re:Chloroquine, past and present
by gpm on Friday March 20, 2020 @07:13PM
(#22642694)
If we set the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 to 0, a far greater reduction than actually occurred, we would be pausing the clock on global warming, which is a very far cry from resetting the clock. Yes, the emissions reduction helped, but not a fraction as much as you claimed.
> Increased funding for scientific output or more climate models isn't going to make a difference. People have to buy and use less. You can't have it both ways here either.
The science I'm most interested in isn't climate models. It's better solar panels, or better wind turbines, or better batteries, or better fission reactors, or (useful) fusion reactors, or space based solar shades, or ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and so on.
People buying and using enough less unfortunately does not seem to be a realistic solution to the problem. People buying less might be able to delay us hitting disastrous amounts of warming by a few years, but that only buys us time for the above kinds of research.
> Increased funding for scientific output or more climate models isn't going to make a difference. People have to buy and use less. You can't have it both ways here either.
The science I'm most interested in isn't climate models. It's better solar panels, or better wind turbines, or better batteries, or better fission reactors, or (useful) fusion reactors, or space based solar shades, or ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and so on.
People buying and using enough less unfortunately does not seem to be a realistic solution to the problem. People buying less might be able to delay us hitting disastrous amounts of warming by a few years, but that only buys us time for the above kinds of research.