A question: You DO realize that these data come from the same type of nutters that were wrong about climate and "climate change" for like 60 Years straight, right?
Why?
Because it was never about the climate.
Not about you, but I would trust their "science" as far as I can throw it (that goes even more now, since the WEF just said that they are "owning the science" on climate change, and that they are cooperating with Google to manipulate/censor results. Totally trustworthy indeed)
What's nutty is their prognostications of doom and the fecklessness of their solutions, not the basic physical science.
Molecules absorb or reflect energy at different wavelengths, this basic mechanism is not open to interpretation for anyone who has actually studied chemistry and physics.
Siberia is warming that's why there's methane explosions from permafrost melting, sea level is rising a bit, glaciers melting, and so on. But we don't solve it by overhauling our entire energy infrastructure with something way more costly and impractical, we solve it with seeding iron in the ocean, debris near L1 lagrange, increasing albedo with sulfates, and so on. Even fission combined with direct air capture is a better solution, more so if we get fusion working which seems likely since commercial magnets are so strong now.
The people that think 100 years from now we'll have a climate crisis have zero imagination or perspective on how radically fast technology advances; there's zero chance in 100 years we'll have a climate crisis unless civilization ends in which case who cares.
A question: You DO realize that these data come from the same type of nutters that were wrong about climate and "climate change" for like 60 Years straight, right?
Why?
Because it was never about the climate.
Not about you, but I would trust their "science" as far as I can throw it (that goes even more now, since the WEF just said that they are "owning the science" on climate change, and that they are cooperating with Google to manipulate/censor results. Totally trustworthy indeed)
What's nutty is their prognostications of doom and the fecklessness of their solutions, not the basic physical science.
Molecules absorb or reflect energy at different wavelengths, this basic mechanism is not open to interpretation for anyone who has actually studied chemistry and physics.
Siberia is warming that's why there's methane explosions from permafrost melting, sea level is rising a bit, glaciers melting, and so on. But we don't solve it by overhauling our entire energy infrastructure with something way more costly and impractical, we solve it with seeding iron in the ocean, debris near L1 lagrange, increasing albedo with sulfates, and so on. Even fission combined with direct air capture is a better solution, more so if we get fusion working which seems likely since commercial magnets are so strong now.
The people that think 100 years from now we'll have a climate crisis have zero imagination or perspective on how radically fast technology advances; there's zero chance in 100 years we'll have a climate crisis unless civilization ends in which case who cares.