I could imagine that el niño can contribute to CO² emmissions indirectly.
Maybe there are in an el niño year more wildfires happening compared to other years for example, which would release additional CO². Or maybe swamps get less water or a combination of several el niño weather effects.
You are right. I kind of read your first comment like "Why don't we simply take matters in our hands" instead of "it's strange that many accept this exploitation of environment and even humans as perfectly normal".
It is interesting and depressing to look at. It's also fascinating to see how many people seem to be successfully brainwashed or whatever the reason is they vote against their own interest.
I think your idea is a very fine idea but at the same time very naive.
One can start advocating what you did. Looking at classes like poor and rich, the poor are definitely the majority, so theoretically one should be able to plant the seed of thought.
But in praxis that doesn't necessarily work that way. I believe one will immediately be called 'too extreme' if not 'terrorist' and struggle to gain supporters. It doesn't help that much of the media is owned by few people.
At the same time the rich showed already that they have no intention to stop poisoning our life basis if that would mean less money for them.
So even if one gets people to follow the idea and starts to get political attention, rich corporations that have a threat to their income have also shown many times that it is not too difficult for them to make people disappear or that they 'tragically die' somehow.
Thanks for your reply. I looked it up now and it looks like you're right.
There doesn't seem to be any scientific difference, it looks like it is based on how people feel about these stones.
Very interesting and ambitious mission.
I just read a little about it. Going to the far side is by far more complicated as going to the side that faces Earth. As communication will be lost as soon as the rocket is behind the moon.
In order to keep contact, there are 2 lunar satellites launched acting as a bridge.
The far side is believed to have a very different composition compared to the near side and part of this mission is to find out why.
Any thoughts, ideas?
I thought maybe the far side receives much more impacts as it's not protected by Earth, so maybe has much more "imported" materials from different areas of space while the near side is still much more Earth like. But that would probably just be surface, I don't know.
What's a semi precious stone? I've read the article and seen the pictures, but still don't know. Is it stones that are pretty but with little monetary value?
I've been reading quite a lot about ww2 subs. Subs that dived for longer times could have pressures inside different to the outside pressure. This wasn't enough to cause health issues, but it could make it either difficult to open the hatch or it blew open itself once unlocked.
Related to the pressure thing: When late war German uboats used the Schorchel technology (which is basically just an extended air intake and exhaust, so the submarine could use its diesel machines at periscope depth) in bad weather, this could result in sudden pressure drops due to the schnorchel being submerged under a wave for a short time and the engines sucking the air out of the submarine itself. It was no easy ride
Incredible poor title. OP please add a sentence or two explaining the article.
I'll start of doing that so other people don't need to blindly click on a link that could be anything.
It's about a welsh coal mine that got closed (not sure if because of environmental reasons or because of less demand) and then after rains turned into a toxic lake.
Article is questioning if the toxic lake and coal imports are any improvement environmentally compared to extracting coal locally.
I think it's not asking the right questions. So there is a toxic lake now and maybe it's worse than a coal mine, but that shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the coal mine was maybe less bad. Instead it should come to the conclusion that companies need to be held responsible and can't just abandon sites like that. Maybe they need to fill in some land or I don't know, but their mess is their responsibility in my opinion.
That's an article giving hope for sure. I don't know how realistic it is. Maybe there'll be an emmissions peak in 2024 while we should half emmissions by 2030.
The difficulty is: even if we're peaking, we have only a few years to half these emmissions, which means there is no time at all to relax. We need to push even harder.
I'm worried about many countries switching to natural gas and declaring natural gas climate neutral. I believe this could be a big threat.
Sidenote: maybe I'm getting just old, but I did hard concentrate on that article where every other word is bold.
I haven't read the article. Dumb question anyway. Yes, AMOC is approaching a tipping point, that science has been public since years. Yes, AMOC has already slowed down some dozen or more per cent.
And while we here answering the same questions as always: yes the climate is changing, yes climate change is also occuring naturally, however this one is human made and yes, the outlook isn't good at all. No, we shouldn't continue burning fossil fuels to feed our energy hunger and yes, we need to do something now or better yeaterday. And no, asking repetitive questions isn't action enough.
Edit: excuse me. I got a little emotional. Education about climate change is good. I'm just a little tired of reading the same stuff since decades I guess, while at the same time we continue to burn more and more fossil fuels.
Another update: Interesting Youtube video about this topic.
That's cool, thank you for pointing out that ship. I only knew of the Tres Hombres which runs under Fairtransport. I've seen some videos on Youtube and got the impression they are financially struggling.
I love those sailing ships of the old times. I find them fascinating. If you love them like me, this is a real gem of video material commented by a sailing captain.
I'm not denying that humanity is responsible for all the climate mess we are in. I'm saying that I can imagine el niño having higher than average CO² releases due to the weather effect it brings looking at a single year, not the climate 30 years.
Of course we humans brought not only ourselves but the vast majority of life into an crisis that seems now to run off. I am very pessimistic about the future as I see still no meaningful reply to this.
Still I find it plausible that in an el niño year there could be more than average CO² emmissions while neutral or la niña years could have less, so they would cancel each other out. If that is so, it would merely be on top of human made emissions, which are still higher than ever.
However, we're probably at a point now where one can't say anything for sure, because no human being has ever experienced 427 ppm CO² and the whole system has an inertia. With this sentence I don't want to say that scientists work not well. I want to say that it is much harder to come to a conclusion to values that have never been seen before compared to data that we can compare with historic data.
Of course that doesn't mean that we can't blame fossil fuel use, because humans emissions are the ones we control most and if we want to continue our lives than we need to stop emmitting.