Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
Indeed Stig. The super rich are generally huge employers.
You will notice that a correction had to be made because it originally stated "25% of global emissions", rather than "25% GROWTH in global emissions" which would have been incredibly misleading!
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.
If you are referring to the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the richest 1% emit 16% of global emissions, which is very different to 25%.
And that to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% comprises emissions from their investments, not just their personal emissions.
To say that the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions is devious, wrong and misleading.
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%. You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
Quote:
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you: Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.
And the "per capita" relates to?
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.
I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding the data. If you don't know what percentile or per capita mean, then maybe it's not worth looking at the data.
The summary, which I think everyone else understands, is that the 1% of people responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for an extraordinary large proportion of the total greenhouse gas emissions.
Constantly trying to belittle someone who has been proven to have been so correct about so much, whilst you have been proven to have been spectacularly wrong, is really not a good look.
But you carry on digging, and don't try pretending that Billionaires are personally responsible for 23% of Global emissions as you did earlier in the thread before you got caught out.
Just 1% of the world’s population was responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions growth over 1990-2019.
Given this information, anyone thinking that "poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns" ought to reconsider their viewpoint.
Chizz, does 'responsible for' mean that it is their personal usage, or does that mean that they own/control businesses responsible for that quarter. If it's the former then there really ought to be some controls over their energy usage. If it's the latter, then that's an understandable consequence of the positions they hold in society.
Humans release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. However, these emissions are disproportionately produced by wealthier people, who typically live more carbon-intensive lifestyles.
When assessing individual contributions to global warming, researchers often focus on emissions from goods and services that people consume. This study presents an update to this method by also including the emissions from a person’s investments in their greenhouse gas footprint. This allows the study to more accurately represent the emissions of the wealthy – which largely come from investments. It assesses three components of a person’s greenhouse gas footprint. The first is private consumption – made up of emissions from the direct use of fuel and emissions embedded into goods and services. The second includes emissions from government spending in that person’s country – such as government administration, public roads or defence.
We can't divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint. That absolves everyone of the responsibility for GHG emissions from business. This study enables an equitable measure, showing both the direct consumption carbon costs and the effects of private businesses and government services.
Thanks for the quick response. Maybe there's something that I don't get, but I think we can and we should divorce the emissions caused by non-consumer businesses from individuals' carbon footprint, because it gives a false picture. That 25% figure makes it look like those people are just jollying their way through gallons of oil when that may not be the case at all. Those emissions might be perfectly legitimate bi-products of the work they are doing and we have no way of judging whether they are reasonable or not if it's all lumped in with emissions made by the same people as consumers. Business emissions need to be attributable to the business, not to the individuals who own or control it.
Indeed Stig. The super rich are generally huge employers.
You will notice that a correction had to be made because it originally stated "25% of global emissions", rather than "25% GROWTH in global emissions" which would have been incredibly misleading!
Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total.
If you are referring to the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the richest 1% emit 16% of global emissions, which is very different to 25%.
And that to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022% comprises emissions from their investments, not just their personal emissions.
To say that the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions is devious, wrong and misleading.
No, I am not referring to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institure (SEI). Had I be doing so, I may well have put a link to the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Instead, I was referring to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022. That's why my post had a link to to Lucas Chancel's report Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019, published on 29 September 2022.
I don't know where you get the line "the Super rich are personally responsible for 25% of global emissions". And, frankly, I don't really care.
Well for starters, you reckoned that it was 23% right here:
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
You're pointing to a sentence that doesn't contain either the words Super rich or the figure 25%. I think you ought to stop and take a breath right now.
So your "top 1%" isn't referring to the Super Rich? Righto.
And where did you get the 23% from? When it's only 16%. You're only about 44% off target 🤣🤣
Why not just for once admit that you're wrong? just as you were wrong about so many things relating to the current US President for so many years, over on the HOC Boards, or have the courage and honesty to admit that I was ultimately proved to have been correct?
The 1% refers to the most polluting percentile. It's not the richest 1%, it's the percentile that emits the most GHG. I can't make that any clearer.
The 23% comes from the link in the report. Click the link and it takes you directly to the place in the report extract that explains the 23%. I can't make that any clearer, either.
That link also, for what it's worth, takes you to the contact details of the report's author, to whom I'd suggest you address any more queries you have regarding the parts of the information you don't understand.
Quote:
"Not "incredibly" misleading. The per capita emissions of the top 1% grew by 26%; since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total."
So you were referring to a percentile were you, not to people?
Let me explain it to you: Last I checked "per capita" means "relating to people".
I can't make it any clearer 🤣
Fortunately, I can. Top 1% = top percentile.
And the "per capita" relates to?
Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.
Per capita means per person. In the context of emissions, the "top 1% per capita" means the 1% of the population who emit the most. In terms of wealth it means the 1% of people who have the most money.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Lol okay. You're yet to contribute anything to this thread other than digs at people that are trying things. You take people discussing options as people telling others what to do even though that has never happened on this thread. You don't have to agree with the things people are trying or you may not think it makes a difference but you could try not to be a colossal twat about it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Lol okay. You're yet to contribute anything to this thread other than digs at people that are trying things. You take people discussing options as people telling others what to do even though that has never happened on this thread. You don't have to agree with the things people are trying or you may not think it makes a difference but you could try not to be a colossal twat about it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
Looking forward to other fascinating anecdotes about lifer's domestic approach to mundane household chores and ablutions.
It's almost like the constant belittling and taking the piss out of people discussing the efforts they make towards preventing the climate disaster on a thread about discussing that, is if nothing else a bit of a dick move.
Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
So my repeating the joke means you are on a very low horse?
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
Lol okay. You're yet to contribute anything to this thread other than digs at people that are trying things. You take people discussing options as people telling others what to do even though that has never happened on this thread. You don't have to agree with the things people are trying or you may not think it makes a difference but you could try not to be a colossal twat about it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
Bingo.
That you try and hide your opinions behind this devil's advocate game shows you have an element of shame for them at the very least.
And yes before anyone says it I know he's getting his sad little rise out of getting me trigged. I know I shouldn't play his sad little game or let him deliberately take threads away from constructive conversation about the actual topic because he doesn't like said topic.
But guess what, I actually care about positive things rather than having entire personality being about things you don't like. I'm passionate about trying to make the world better so these sad games do get to me eventually.
And yes before anyone says it I know he's getting his sad little rise out of getting me trigged. I know I shouldn't play his sad little game or let him deliberately take threads away from constructive conversation about the actual topic because he doesn't like said topic.
But guess what, I actually care about positive things rather than having entire personality being about things you don't like. I'm passionate about trying to make the world better so these sad games do get to me eventually.
I’m not looking for a sad little rise, but interesting seeing what level you can achieve.
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.
Can we? Elsewhere, in other research, I read the opposite, that the risk of tsunamis forming was greatly increased by rising sea levels, but as I was bamboozled by all the research data and terminology accompanying it, so I'm only quoting from an abstract here.
"Rising sea levels will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on coastal communities globally. With previous research focused on how sea-level rise (SLR) affects storm-induced flooding, we show that SLR will also increase both the frequency and the intensity of tsunami-induced flooding, another significant coastal hazard associated with sea-level extremes. We developed probabilistic tsunami inundation maps for Macau, a densely populated coastal city located in the South China Sea, under current sea-level, 0.5-m SLR, and 1-m SLR conditions, using an extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation. Our results indicate that conservative amounts of SLR of 0.5 m (by 2060) and 1 m (by 2100) would dramatically increase the frequency of tsunami-induced flooding incidences by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4 and 1.5 to 4.7, respectively."
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
Absolutely fascinating programme that. For me, especially the bit about the 50m year ice age being broken by C02 from volcanoes. That and the massive fungi that no longer exist, because plants developed systems enabling them to grow big enough that meant fungi were left in the shade. Link here for anyone that might have missed this phenomenal piece of television.
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.
Can we? Elsewhere, in other research, I read the opposite, that the risk of tsunamis forming was greatly increased by rising sea levels, but as I was bamboozled by all the research data and terminology accompanying it, so I'm only quoting from an abstract here.
"Rising sea levels will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on coastal communities globally. With previous research focused on how sea-level rise (SLR) affects storm-induced flooding, we show that SLR will also increase both the frequency and the intensity of tsunami-induced flooding, another significant coastal hazard associated with sea-level extremes. We developed probabilistic tsunami inundation maps for Macau, a densely populated coastal city located in the South China Sea, under current sea-level, 0.5-m SLR, and 1-m SLR conditions, using an extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation. Our results indicate that conservative amounts of SLR of 0.5 m (by 2060) and 1 m (by 2100) would dramatically increase the frequency of tsunami-induced flooding incidences by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4 and 1.5 to 4.7, respectively."
VP. The melting of glaciers over large areas increases magma production at depth. Conversely, for submarine volcanoes, rising sea levels linked to human-induced climate change are increasing pressure on magma chambers. This could reduce magma production.
Less submarine magma production should equate to less submarine eruptions, shouldn't it?
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.
Can we? Elsewhere, in other research, I read the opposite, that the risk of tsunamis forming was greatly increased by rising sea levels, but as I was bamboozled by all the research data and terminology accompanying it, so I'm only quoting from an abstract here.
"Rising sea levels will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on coastal communities globally. With previous research focused on how sea-level rise (SLR) affects storm-induced flooding, we show that SLR will also increase both the frequency and the intensity of tsunami-induced flooding, another significant coastal hazard associated with sea-level extremes. We developed probabilistic tsunami inundation maps for Macau, a densely populated coastal city located in the South China Sea, under current sea-level, 0.5-m SLR, and 1-m SLR conditions, using an extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation. Our results indicate that conservative amounts of SLR of 0.5 m (by 2060) and 1 m (by 2100) would dramatically increase the frequency of tsunami-induced flooding incidences by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4 and 1.5 to 4.7, respectively."
VP. The melting of glaciers over large areas increases magma production at depth. Conversely, for submarine volcanoes, rising sea levels linked to human-induced climate change are increasing pressure on magma chambers. This could reduce magma production.
Less submarine magma production should equate to less submarine eruptions, shouldn't it?
I wouldn't feel confident answering that as I don't have the expertise, but intuitively you'd think so. Seems not though due to how the other forces of nature interact, as explained in the link.
Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.
Can we? Elsewhere, in other research, I read the opposite, that the risk of tsunamis forming was greatly increased by rising sea levels, but as I was bamboozled by all the research data and terminology accompanying it, so I'm only quoting from an abstract here.
"Rising sea levels will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on coastal communities globally. With previous research focused on how sea-level rise (SLR) affects storm-induced flooding, we show that SLR will also increase both the frequency and the intensity of tsunami-induced flooding, another significant coastal hazard associated with sea-level extremes. We developed probabilistic tsunami inundation maps for Macau, a densely populated coastal city located in the South China Sea, under current sea-level, 0.5-m SLR, and 1-m SLR conditions, using an extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation. Our results indicate that conservative amounts of SLR of 0.5 m (by 2060) and 1 m (by 2100) would dramatically increase the frequency of tsunami-induced flooding incidences by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4 and 1.5 to 4.7, respectively."
VP. The melting of glaciers over large areas increases magma production at depth. Conversely, for submarine volcanoes, rising sea levels linked to human-induced climate change are increasing pressure on magma chambers. This could reduce magma production.
Less submarine magma production should equate to less submarine eruptions, shouldn't it?
I wouldn't feel confident answering that as I don't have the expertise, but intuitively you'd think so. Seems not though due to how the other forces of nature interact, as explained in the link.
Indeed. And with so many different forces and events interacting, it's probably impossible to know for sure. Hopefully that's where AI may be able to provide answers in the not too distant future.
Since there's no thread on US politics, I'm going to say this in here.
I was 100% against Trump back when Hilary was running. I couldn't believe Trump won. I thought Americans were crazy. I'd been leaning towards the left for more than 20 years without even knowing - maybe it was a result of me watching Hollywood films and TV series ever since the 90's. Anyway, it wasn't until this past election that I realized why the Dems lost so spectacularly... I read about some policies by the Dems and they were shocking. I have a childhood friend who now lives in New Jersey and she isn't pleased with the Dems either. In my opinion, the left has taken many things way too far. I know 99% of Lifers don't like Trump - I still don't like him either but you really should look more closely to see why he won the election this time. It's partly because the Democratic Party have done awfully in recent years in quite a few areas. Voters always care more about things that directly relate to their own well-being. And I suppose even if it wasn't Trump that was running, the Democratic Party would still have lost this election.
So my point is, step back and take a real look. It's impossible that over half of the population of a country is dumb.
I give you two examples of why I don't like the Dems (especially the Biden administration). One, immigration policies and DEI gone too far. Two, the ridiculously chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan. These are just the ones that are off the top of my head.
I had stereotype impressions of the GOP. Now I'm probably more a centrist...
So what does the future look like? A USA flag on Mars? Drilling for more oil in the Gulf of America whilst battling against the ever intensifying cyclones forming there having depressed the accelerator on the road to oblivion? That's gotta be a price worth paying to make America great again right, because it's gonna be one helluva ride there, so strap in folks. Whoo hoo! The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.
Well why not wait to "drill baby drill" until after having proved that we can control the thermostat to regulate / reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere first, then it wouldn't matter how much we emit. Now wouldn't that be the bigger step achievement for mankind?
Great post Jessie... Queeries been educating those that won't listen for years here.
Actually I've seen many films about homosexual people and always sympathised with them. I'm all for the legalisation of same-sex marriage. I think it's a necessary change. But anything other than that, I'm not sure... Last year I read that Biden signed an executive order that provided free transgender surgery to military members and many transgender people joined the military just for free surgeries (I think that's the natural outcome of this policy). While thousands and thousands of services members are denied of PTSD and TBI treatments because the US government or the military organisations don't have adequate financial resources and yet they have money for transgender surgeries? WTF is that? I really think it's a sign that the LGBT issue becoming ridiculous. If I go to a lady's room and there's a trans who used to be a man, I'd feel very very uncomfortable or even scared. What the left is doing is encouraging, not supporting but encouraging abnormalities and encouraging people to "use" the policies for their own purposes.
Since there's no thread on US politics, I'm going to say this in here.
I was 100% against Trump back when Hilary was running. I couldn't believe Trump won. I thought Americans were crazy. I'd been leaning towards the left for more than 20 years without even knowing - maybe it was a result of me watching Hollywood films and TV series ever since the 90's. Anyway, it wasn't until this past election that I realized why the Dems lost so spectacularly... I read about some policies by the Dems and they were shocking. I have a childhood friend who now lives in New Jersey and she isn't pleased with the Dems either. In my opinion, the left has taken many things way too far. I know 99% of Lifers don't like Trump - I still don't like him either but you really should look more closely to see why he won the election this time. It's partly because the Democratic Party have done awfully in recent years in quite a few areas. Voters always care more about things that directly relate to their own well-being. And I suppose even if it wasn't Trump that was running, the Democratic Party would still have lost this election.
So my point is, step back and take a real look. It's impossible that over half of the population of a country is dumb.
I give you two examples of why I don't like the Dems (especially the Biden administration). One, immigration policies and DEI gone too far. Two, the ridiculously chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan. These are just the ones that are off the top of my head.
I had stereotype impressions of the GOP. Now I'm probably more a centrist...
There is a very good reason why there is no US politics thread, or any other politics threads. There used to be but all it lead to was bickering, name calling and in some cases outright aggression.
We do not need a discussion on US politics on this football forum - plenty of other places online for that.
Comments
But you carry on digging, and don't try pretending that Billionaires are personally responsible for 23% of Global emissions as you did earlier in the thread before you got caught out.
Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true.
I know that’s not true. You and a couple of others are sanctimonious beyond belief, and not just on this subject.
…and I never look to have a laugh an any individuals expense. I have a laugh at silly or amusing content. If that content happens to come from the same people then that’s unfortunate, but I don’t track it.
We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all.
Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future.
https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/planet/climate-change-will-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/#:~:text=Climate change is altering geological,particular eruption to climate change.
But guess what, I actually care about positive things rather than having entire personality being about things you don't like. I'm passionate about trying to make the world better so these sad games do get to me eventually.
So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!
At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.
"Rising sea levels will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on coastal communities globally. With previous research focused on how sea-level rise (SLR) affects storm-induced flooding, we show that SLR will also increase both the frequency and the intensity of tsunami-induced flooding, another significant coastal hazard associated with sea-level extremes. We developed probabilistic tsunami inundation maps for Macau, a densely populated coastal city located in the South China Sea, under current sea-level, 0.5-m SLR, and 1-m SLR conditions, using an extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation. Our results indicate that conservative amounts of SLR of 0.5 m (by 2060) and 1 m (by 2100) would dramatically increase the frequency of tsunami-induced flooding incidences by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4 and 1.5 to 4.7, respectively."
Edit - Actually this looks an easier read 5 ways climate change increases the threat of tsunamis, from collapsing ice shelves to sea level rise
And what about magma production at depth?
Less submarine magma production should equate to less submarine eruptions, shouldn't it?
Hopefully that's where AI may be able to provide answers in the not too distant future.
I was 100% against Trump back when Hilary was running. I couldn't believe Trump won. I thought Americans were crazy. I'd been leaning towards the left for more than 20 years without even knowing - maybe it was a result of me watching Hollywood films and TV series ever since the 90's. Anyway, it wasn't until this past election that I realized why the Dems lost so spectacularly... I read about some policies by the Dems and they were shocking. I have a childhood friend who now lives in New Jersey and she isn't pleased with the Dems either. In my opinion, the left has taken many things way too far. I know 99% of Lifers don't like Trump - I still don't like him either but you really should look more closely to see why he won the election this time. It's partly because the Democratic Party have done awfully in recent years in quite a few areas. Voters always care more about things that directly relate to their own well-being. And I suppose even if it wasn't Trump that was running, the Democratic Party would still have lost this election.
So my point is, step back and take a real look. It's impossible that over half of the population of a country is dumb.
I give you two examples of why I don't like the Dems (especially the Biden administration). One, immigration policies and DEI gone too far. Two, the ridiculously chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan. These are just the ones that are off the top of my head.
I had stereotype impressions of the GOP. Now I'm probably more a centrist...
Well why not wait to "drill baby drill" until after having proved that we can control the thermostat to regulate / reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere first, then it wouldn't matter how much we emit. Now wouldn't that be the bigger step achievement for mankind?