4 ms·
And emission of methane and other hydrocarbons from thawing permafrost. Plus changes in global ocean currents. Plus emissions of sulphide and nitride into atmos
by AstralStorm 9y ago
And emission of methane and other hydrocarbons from thawing permafrost. Plus changes in global ocean currents.
Plus emissions of sulphide and nitride into atmosphere.
The answer is all of the above and they feed into each other. The main question that remains is whether we should try to attack CO2 or methane emissions first. Which will be more cost effective and more attainable in short term.
- specialist 9y agoOk, thanks. I misunderstood, worried tejohnso was ‘skeptical’ (denier). Agree on thawing permafrost, don’t know anything about atmospheric sulphides & nitrides (will read up, thanks). Regarding (human) emissions, sure, reduce at best available speed. But now that warming is self sustaining, we need to aggressively sequester, and hopefully figure out ways to slow and reduce ongoing methane release.
- tejohnso 9y agoI don't think skeptics and "deniers" should be considered equivalent. One group endeavours to verify facts before accepting them, while the other ignores facts or deliberately misrepresents them.
- mcphage 9y ago> I don’t think skeptics and "deniers" should be considered equivalent. You’re right in that they’re not equivalent, but often deniers (of any widely supported viewpoint) have learned to speak in terms of skepticism in order to deflect criticism of their denial. They say “oh, I’m a skeptic”, but provide the same stale arguments, and when those arguments are refuted (yet again), they don’t move their position one jot. They just retreat, and bring them up again at the next opportunity. So no, they’re not the same, but plenty of people are suspicious of “skeptics”, having run into too many that don’t argue in good faith.
- meko 9y agoSo would you say you're... skeptic of skeptics?