Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

oldcreaker t1_jdx9s5c wrote

Climate deniers are just waiting for that point of no return so they can say "doesn't matter what we do now".

95

ioncloud9 t1_jdydpzk wrote

It can get far far worse.

15

mr_oof t1_jdyx0f3 wrote

There it is, again

That funny feeling.

10

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jdz1y55 wrote

There is no ceiling, really, i guess. Like pain. Short of the earth exploding. As an ICU nurse I kinda had this realization on the job - there's an almost infinite number of things worse than death. So, so many circumstances. Make an advance directive. lol. At the very least, thinking in terms of "quality of life" can advance the conversation in a lot of misdirected fields.

4

ML4Bratwurst t1_jdyu8ev wrote

I am not a climate denier, bit I think we already hit some thresholds. Like the permafrost in the north are already melting and emmiting huge amounts of methane. Not sure if there is a was to stop all this. Reducing CO2 is still important tho

5

Assfuck-McGriddle t1_jdzh3k2 wrote

There is always a way to stop all of this. Hell, there are ways.

What we lack is the political fortitude to make it so.

1

ML4Bratwurst t1_jdzhdci wrote

Yeah I don't think there really is. You can't change physics. We haven't hit the wall yet, but we are too fast to halt before impact. And yes. Politically it's not really wanted.

2

Assfuck-McGriddle t1_jdzipuu wrote

I’m not saying we can reverse every problem we’ve created but we damn well know how to substantially lower the damage we’re causing and mitigate future damages. One year of COVID alone created more positive change than we thought even possible. As I stated above, the only issue is politics. It’s a lot more than just “not really wanted.” It’s almost completely not cared about.

3

Inevitable_Syrup777 t1_jdy9c8u wrote

>Climate deniers

China.

CO2 Emissions by Country

1 China 29.18%

2 United States 14.02%

3 India 7.09%

4 Russia 4.65%

Stay mad, Tiananmen Square Deniers

2

UnifiedQuantumField t1_jdzecdd wrote

These figures are probably accurate, but they don't tell the whole story. How so?

Consider that much of the emissions from China stem from manufacturing of products that get exported to places like Europe and the US.

tldr; We buy cheap stuff from China and then scold them for the CO₂

12

MightyH20 t1_jdzjkza wrote

The outsourcing of emissions hit it's peak at the beginning of 2008. Then the financial crisis hits and the outsourcing of emissions decreased significantly. Currently, China is responsible for their own emissions which is the result of domestic growth and in particular the construction sector.

Similarly, we can argue that "the east" had outsourced emissions in the 1950s to the 1990s to "the west" since the manufacturing happened in "the west". In fact, China's rapid growth was made possible by western companies and products, yet this isn't accounted for today as well.

In reality the outsourcing of emissions is way to complex to attribute it to actual policy making or distribution of emissions on a global level.

Edit, added source:

> That said, these transfers only account for a fraction of the rise in developing country emissions. Which makes sense. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage

6

JRocFuhsYoBih t1_jdzxovk wrote

I feel like the US and China are a lot closer in that race than what’s being said there

0

sipsatea t1_je0bq1p wrote

Hey do you like math?

China 1.2 billion people USA 330 million

China 4x population but only 2x emissions. Per citizen US emits 2x as much carbon.

What's it like living in the Foxxtrap?

0

[deleted] t1_jdyheu4 wrote

[removed]

−12

Frostcrisp t1_jdykh7o wrote

China is outputting the vast majority of warming gases. I think that's what they're alluding to.

China makes the US look like a non-offender by comparison.

4

ialsoagree t1_jdyl5yu wrote

China is not emitting "the vast majority" - they're not even emitting the majority.

Words have meaning, and majority means more than half. China emits around 30% of the total CO2e emissions - not even remotely close to the majority.

The word you are looking for is plurality. China emits a plurality of CO2e. With the US being the only country remotely close behind at 14%. India, the third highest, emits about half of what the US emits, or less than a quarter of what China emits.

The three countries combined equal the majority of global emissions.

8

Inevitable_Syrup777 t1_jdz78tx wrote

CO2 Emissions by Country

Country Share of world

1 China 29.18% 2 United States 14.02% 3 India 7.09% 4 Russia 4.65%

china literally IS emitting the majority

0

ialsoagree t1_jdzm8ko wrote

Less than 50% is literally not the majority, it's a plurality.

2

Realistic_Turn2374 t1_jdzj2dq wrote

For it to emit the majority they would need to emit more than 50%.

What you mean is that they are the country that currently emits the most. Although if we look for cummulative CO2, the US wins by a lot, then it is the European Union and then China. This matters because the C02 that is warming up the environment is not just what we emmit every year, but what we have emmited over all.

China is currently the main emissor, and they do need to do something about it (and they are doing it by being the biggest clean energy producer), but let's not forget that they are the second most populated country in the world and that they manufacture products for the rest of the planet too. The US, in comparison with only a small fraction of their population, pollutes too much.

0

Inevitable_Syrup777 t1_jdyy4l3 wrote

one country emits 1/3 of the fucking global emissions. I thought they were the smartest country, too!

−1

ToothlessGrandma t1_jdyl0pt wrote

It really doesn't make sense and speaks to the volume of incompetence on the global stage. China is investing in 90 new coal plants. 90. Instead of investing in renewable energy, they're doing everything they can to contribute to global warming.

It's super short term profits over long term viability and stability. It's insane really.

4

ialsoagree t1_jdym6qv wrote

>Instead of investing in renewable energy, they're doing everything they can to contribute to global warming.

This isn't an accurate or fair claim by any measure.

China has issues, and it needs to address them, but straight up lying isn't helpful to the conversation.

In 2022, China added 26.8GW of new coal power capacity.

In the same year, China added 125GW of new solar and wind power.

While the US is investing about $141 billion in new renewable energy, China has invested a whopping $546 billion in 2022.

The idea that China isn't making efforts to build out a clean grid just isn't true. Yes, they are expanding coal power generation, and they are the nation with the leading CO2e emissions - and they do need to address both of those problems.

But to suggest that China isn't committed to building renewable energy just isn't accurate by any stretch of the imagination. They're doing more to expand renewable than the US and EU combined.

5

ToothlessGrandma t1_jdymqch wrote

I acknowledge all your points, but still disagree with your overall logic. It doesn't matter what they're doing with renewables, by adding an additional 90 coal plants, you're really offsetting all that progress and it's pretty meaningless now. If they were serious they wouldn't be proceeding with new coal plants. I'm not sure anyone can explain why the coal plants are needed except because they're cheap and fast, which has been china's motto for decades.

1

ialsoagree t1_jdynh5z wrote

>It doesn't matter what they're doing with renewables

Then why did you lie about what they are doing?

Instead of investing in renewable energy, they're doing everything they can to contribute to global warming.

If you hadn't lied about it, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

>by adding an additional 90 coal plants, you're really offsetting all that progress and it's pretty meaningless now.

China needs more power. They should not be building coal, but it's not fair to say that it's "cancelling out" anything.

They added 150GW of power between coal and renewables. Instead of it being 150GW of coal, it's 120GW of renewables and only 25GW of coal.

That cancels out a lot of coal emissions - and saying they're not investing in renewables is a lie. You lied.

>If they were serious they wouldn't be proceeding with new coal plants.

It's incredibly easy to criticize a country that is trying to develop itself, especially in areas that lack the technology and infrastructure to support more advanced power plants.

It's especially easy to do while you sit in a country that emitted far more emissions from coal than China ever has when it went through the same development cycle centuries ago.

Compared to the US or Europe, China is doing an incredible job of bringing power to millions of people while minimizing emissions.

EDIT:

To clarify, the US has emitted about 2x more emissions than China since the industrial revolution. And the EU has emitted about 1.5x more.

That doesn't excuse China, but it does make the idea that China isn't doing enough to limit emissions laughably ridiculous when it comes from the EU and US.

1

ToothlessGrandma t1_jdyord8 wrote

Nothing cancels out those emissions. They're still going into the atmosphere and contributing to the overall greenhouse gases.

You seem like you're a shill for China, so this conversation isn't going anywhere. Wasn't China caught recently as being the only country on the planet secretly using ozone depleting gases?

−1

ialsoagree t1_jdyqcsf wrote

I never said anything cancels out those emissions. Infact, it was you who said that some emissions cancel out a lack of emissions, am equally ridiculous claim.

If you think pointing out facts makes me a shill, I think you're just unable to admit when you're wrong.

Everyone is wrong from time to time, it's how you respond to being wrong that defines you.

1

Inevitable_Syrup777 t1_jdz715q wrote

CO2 Emissions by Country

Country Share of world

1 China 29.18% 2 United States 14.02% 3 India 7.09% 4 Russia 4.65%

2

ialsoagree t1_jdzm6d1 wrote

Yes. I've literally pointed that out elsewhere.

2

MightyH20 t1_jdzk1vi wrote

No offense but all these numbers are useless given the massive scale of the quantity of a percentage increase or decrease from a reference point.

The only metric that is relevant in terms of climate change is the amount of emissions and in particularly the progression towards climate targets.

A fair question would be how far a country has progressed towards that target?

0

Realistic_Turn2374 t1_jdzjfqp wrote

> Instead of investing in renewable energy, they're doing everything they can to contribute to global warming.

This is a lie. China invests more in renewable energy than any other country and per capita the US emmits 4 times more than China. On top of that, China produces products for the rest of the world. If the average Chinese person spent as much as the average American, China would produce 4 times the amount of CO2 they produce now. Luckily for us, Chinese dont't waste nearly as much as Americans.

1

VinetaK_8346 t1_jdysj97 wrote

Bold of you to assume they think such a point would be there at all.

1

Vucea OP t1_jdx4blf wrote

Once we emit about 1000 gigatons of carbon, much of the massive ice sheet will melt irreversibly. We’ve emitted 500 gigatons so far.

The Greenland Ice Sheet covers 1.7 million square kilometers (660,200 square miles) in the Arctic. If it melts entirely, global sea level would rise about 7 meters (23 feet), but scientists aren’t sure how quickly the ice sheet could melt. Modeling tipping points, which are critical thresholds where a system behavior irreversibly changes, helps researchers find out when that melt might occur.

Based in part on carbon emissions, a new study using simulations identified two tipping points for the Greenland Ice Sheet: releasing 1000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere will cause the southern portion of the ice sheet to melt; about 2500 gigatons of carbon means permanent loss of nearly the entire ice sheet.

Having emitted about 500 gigatons of carbon, we’re about halfway to the first tipping point.

20

grundar t1_jdxicxh wrote

> Once we emit about 1000 gigatons of carbon, much of the massive ice sheet will melt irreversibly.

That is not an accurate summary of the paper.

From "Discussion":
> "We find two critical temperature anomaly thresholds above which the equilibrium volume of the GIS decreases non-linearly, at approximately 0.6 and 1.6°C. However, a temporary overshoot of these critical temperature thresholds does not inevitably cause long-term melt of the ice sheet (see Section 3.2). With transient experiments, we find that an equilibrium state of the GIS with smaller ice volume is approached only if the CO2 forcing is applied sufficiently long that the ice volume falls below the values of ΔVA = −0.26 m sle and ΔVC = −2.4 m sle, respectively."

The paper examines this in detail in Section 3.2; in particular, they say:
> "a temporal overshoot of a critical temperature does not necessarily lead to long-term ice loss"

So what does that mean?

What that means is if we reduce our emissions quickly enough, then net CO2 sequestration (from natural sources like silicate weathering as well as possibly from manmade sources such as direct air capture) will reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence the temperature, and hence potentially pull us back to the other side of the temperature tipping points before the ice loss tipping point is reached.

So what does that mean?

It means that even "tipping points" operate on geologic time scales, meaning they are generally not irreversible on human time scales. Passing one of the critical temperatures in the paper (1.6C) for 2,000 years would bring irreversible melt; passing it for 20 years would not. As a result, speed of decarbonization matters, regardless of where we are with regard to different tipping points.

23

ILikeNeurons t1_jdxei9o wrote

> “We cannot continue carbon emissions at the same rate for much longer without risking crossing the tipping points,” Höning said.

Interestingly, people already care, they just don't know what to do / feel like they are alone. But the truth is, a record number of us are alarmed about climate change, and more and more are contacting Congress regularly. What's more, is this type of lobbying is starting to pay off. That's why NASA climatologist and climate activist Dr. James Hansen recommends becoming an active volunteer with this group as the most important thing an individual can do on climate change.

14

bigapewhat089 t1_jdxg0a5 wrote

Everyone wants a quick and easy solution but the reality is that this is mainly everyone's fault. Companies pollute alot because of demand for products. Every Amazon delivery, import and export of country good, purchasing clothes every year, new smartphone every 2 years, increase in meat consumption. It's easy to blame private jets, but that's not the only source, thousands of planes fly everyday to delivery goods, ships full of cargo. Want pollution to stop, then stop being a consumer. This also goes for fruits and vegetables cause they also don't grow in one region.

9

juntareich t1_jdxw0h8 wrote

I wish more people would understand this simple truth.

9

agent_wolfe t1_jdywqpa wrote

I guess I’m doing a little to help the environment. WFH saves on gas pollution. I don’t drive much. I’m averaging 2 flights every 9 years. My phone is at least 5 or 6 years old. I’m 2 generations behind on Xbox. I haven’t bought a shirt since the month the pandemic started. And I barely use Amazon.

But yeah, I do like fruit & veggies that don’t grow here. And I eat meat. And there’s so much waste from manufactured products. I’m not too conscientious about companies or working to save the environment. I guess I’m just neutralish.

1

bigapewhat089 t1_jdz60s0 wrote

Don't get wrong wrong, it's good that you live a minimalist lifestyle, mainly for your own wellbeing. But individual pollution is just a drop in the bucket. Most people do not share this sentiment, and it will be impossible for them to do so. A big factor is advertisment, you buy shit cause you see the newest and greatest. But the main reason is humans are evolutionary we want to advance, so we have tons of kids (which is still not enough to sustain the economy) that also pollute. In short, we are fucked. The hope is that some tech comes out which helps stabilize this. No country will stop advancing and have a complete shutdown, put millions of people out of work into the streets, to save the planet.

2

The_Most_Superb t1_jdxirg7 wrote

If someone was handing out cigarettes at a preschool, would you blame the kids for dying of cancer? The blame lies on the shoulders on the government for letting it take place.

−1

juntareich t1_jdxvwe8 wrote

You’re comparing grown adults who make their own decisions to preschool children? Do you realize how weak of an argument that is?

2

clickster t1_jdyo6s9 wrote

To make you own decisions, you need agency. Most people have very limited agency. Most don't get to choose where or how their food is grown, how or where their energy needs are met, many have only limited control over where they live (a function of work / cost), how infrastructure they rely upon is created, how the industries they rely upon are regulated and supplied etc etc... the big moving parts in civilisation are controlled by a handful of entities; not "the people".

8

juntareich t1_je0bn92 wrote

One of the major challenges is that people misuse the agency they do have. People value their own wants, comfort and convenience above all. Your statement ignores the fact that everyone could give up beef tomorrow. That no one needs to fly across the world or drive across the country for leisure. People make the choices that benefit them the most, rich and poor, seventh generation be damned.

1

mascachopo t1_jdy38k8 wrote

As grown adults we live in a society that has been and keeps being designed to extract every cent from us as consumers. Many people will behave like your idyllic thoughts suggest but in reality most of us are just a product of constant market manipulation.

1

rokenroleg t1_jdy68sb wrote

I've seen most adults, I think it's a fair take.

1

agent_wolfe t1_jdywtpg wrote

You’ve seen “most” adults…? How long did that take?

4

The_Most_Superb t1_jdygd3p wrote

Your right, that analogy isn’t right. When comparing the average knowledge of an average adult to the subject matter experts of billion dollar corporations and the thousands of careers dedicated to climate research I should have said: would you blame a bunch of amebas for getting squished by oil tycoon’s boot? Blaming individual consumers for entire systems planned, created, and executed by corporations is ridiculous. “If you alone gave up red meat you could counter act the Exxon Valdeez! Or maybe if you don’t buy things from Amazon, you’ll save the polar bears!” The big polluters won’t stop unless regulations step in to make them stop. The government is in control of the regulations that make up the market that these companies operate in. The government could end subsidies for factory farming meat, and oil and gas, but they don’t. They see these companies giving out cigarettes at preschools and look the other way.

1

juntareich t1_je0b1jq wrote

Yes, the system and those who create and maintain it bear heavy responsibility; so do the consumers who continue to make choices that exacerbate the problems.

1

bigapewhat089 t1_jdxj3zh wrote

I would blame the parents. I don't rely on the government to tell me right from wrong.

−5

The_Most_Superb t1_jdydskl wrote

The parents are part the government in that analogy! Your original comment blames the kids for not turning down the cigarettes. My point is that it is a failure of the system for allowing it to happen in the first place. Also just to be clear, the cigarettes are pollution and the kids are individual citizens. We need to regulate the companies causing the pollution. Blaming the individual consumer is exactly what polluters want you to do to distract you from their enormous contribution to destroying the planet.

2

bigapewhat089 t1_jdz6nn3 wrote

So you want the government to tell people what they can and cannot buy. Great idea, go to North Korea. Also it's not like we were aware of this from the start, and once the ball starts rolling you can't just stop it. There is way too much going on here than. "Let's stop using oil" it's not that simple we don't want a total economic collapse, we will cease to exist that way too. Why do you think Biden opened up more oil fields after promising to close them in the states.

0

The_Most_Superb t1_je01pko wrote

So you’ve never heard of the EPA or FDA? They’re the only reason companies in the US are held to any sort of standard. Companies don’t care about harming the public, they only care if they keep buying their product. I never said it was just about not using fossil fuels. Let’s look at recycling for instance, a great way to individually contribute, except the majority of what you put in recycling never gets recycled. It either goes to a landfill here or gets shipped to another country and dumped in the ocean. The total economic collapse argument is propaganda from polluters who lobby against any change to regulations that might hurt their profits, they just want to keep making money and not change. Companies lobby government officials to not add new regulations and sometimes remove existing regulations. Follow the money. It’s the same reason Joe Manchin neutered the Green New Deal, because he own one of the largest coal power plants in the country. There is government corruption, but regulations are the only way to make lasting change to the way we care for our environment. There’s a huge difference in saying a company can’t dump chemical byproducts of car paint manufacturers straight into our water supply, and fascism/total economic collapse. Libertarians are just people who don’t understand how systems work. No point in arguing with you anymore. Peace out.

1

bigapewhat089 t1_je02tup wrote

A better way for me to phrase it is. I understand what you are saying and I kinda agree, but I don't think the government will solve it but rather they will fuck it up more. Example California and their plastic straw law. Its a cash grab. New York and the right to repair law, doctored right before release to help big corp.

1

Weatherman_Accuracy t1_jdy29u5 wrote

This causes my Eco anxiety to go through the roof….. I need to go take a walk in nature to help calm me Down.

9

Koda_20 t1_jdy3ior wrote

Society blew it with all the last chance warnings from the last century.

9

eggtart_prince t1_jdyvfnd wrote

Point your fingers at the U.S, EU, and China. Don't blame the others as the carbon they've emitted amounts to nothing like those 3.

4

Haddonimore t1_jdzv5lu wrote

Actually over the history of modern carbon Emissions England is still on top purely from the fact the started so much earlier in the industrial revolution

2

ialsoagree t1_jdzzwe6 wrote

The US has emitted more than the entire EU combined.

Remember, the industrial revolution started around the time the US became a country.

2

TheGeekstor t1_je6hl9c wrote

This is a pretty dumb take since almost the entire world uses products produced by those regions. It's pointless to pretend like the global supply chain isn't inseparably interdependent at this point.

1

YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdxyzmm wrote

Oh phew, and here I thought a day would pass on Futurology without a single doomer news title.

6

_grey_wall t1_jdy99vf wrote

How'd the over get there in the first place? Cause that's one way or can return.

3

salmiakki1 t1_jdzlel8 wrote

Is 500 gigatons the amount of carbon humans have emitted since the begin of time?

3

FuturologyBot t1_jdx9rqo wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Vucea:

Once we emit about 1000 gigatons of carbon, much of the massive ice sheet will melt irreversibly. We’ve emitted 500 gigatons so far.

The Greenland Ice Sheet covers 1.7 million square kilometers (660,200 square miles) in the Arctic. If it melts entirely, global sea level would rise about 7 meters (23 feet), but scientists aren’t sure how quickly the ice sheet could melt. Modeling tipping points, which are critical thresholds where a system behavior irreversibly changes, helps researchers find out when that melt might occur.

Based in part on carbon emissions, a new study using simulations identified two tipping points for the Greenland Ice Sheet: releasing 1000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere will cause the southern portion of the ice sheet to melt; about 2500 gigatons of carbon means permanent loss of nearly the entire ice sheet.

Having emitted about 500 gigatons of carbon, we’re about halfway to the first tipping point.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/123zxg2/the_greenland_ice_sheet_is_close_to_a_melting/jdx4blf/

1

leekle t1_jdxlcbk wrote

So basically you’re saying ice will no longer form?

1

smurficus103 t1_jdxqpmx wrote

Liquid water absorbs radiation and converts it into heat; snow / white ice reflects a bunch of radiation back out.

Once a region melts, it's tough to reverse it. It's kind of a feedback loop.

It's gonna still snow and shit, but have more and more liquid water

3

codemajdoor t1_jdz253o wrote

Also, the latent heat of ICE is 80 i.e.. the energy it takes to melt ice can raise temprature of same amount of water by 80C so its a double wammy. not only you are absorbing more energy, you are also heating much faster and thus creating more melt/vapor.

1

OuterLightness t1_jdzruf0 wrote

The first tipping point was reaching a critical mass of human stupidity.

1

SpookyWah t1_jdzw1w9 wrote

"Think of all the wealth of minerals, ores and fossil fuels that can now be mined! There could be billions in profits to extract and exhaust!" - some dirt bags, somewhere.

1

Tnuvu t1_jdz4m4w wrote

Well, let's see, how many trees and forests have we planted to tone down the built up heat ?

How many private jets, do we really need another plague to force everyone to stay land side?

0

ILikeNeurons t1_je0cfue wrote

I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.

1

Tnuvu t1_je0lef7 wrote

Yeah, I would initially say that's a good model, until you realize the amount of hardcoded assumptions just like with the weather.

Simply put, we can actually realistically model way to few accurate components to actually be able to tell if it's just math on paper, or actually viable.

What you can do, is take a look at some Nasa pics, and see how the earth locked back then, and now, and see where the green went, and correlate some things.

But what do I know...

2

kujasgoldmine t1_jdzi7gx wrote

But humans being humans, we'll start to act once all ice has melted and cities are flooding already. It's just not profitable to act pre-emptively on a scale that would make a difference.

0

Fake_William_Shatner t1_jdx9291 wrote

This is part of the "we need to get serious" situation. If we treated this as an existential emergency (and, it is part of the package) -- then, we might put up some heat reflectors over large swaths of ice to lower the temperature. It wouldn't take too much to artificially trap more water ice (relative to building an aircraft carrier or large dam) and thus, prevent a huge dumping of ice and freshwater melt into the sea.

Once it leaves Iceland, it's going to be a lot harder to trap all that water there again in any short period of time.

And the thing about the climate models, is most of them refer to the heat energy and time it takes to melt all this ice -- not, how much it could quickly raise sea levels if it fell off of Antarctica and into the ocean. Of course, it can take about 50 years to distribute this sea level rise -- but, it's also a point of no return.

−1

eggtart_prince t1_jdyv99q wrote

>but scientists aren’t sure how quickly the ice sheet could melt.

It's gonna take decades to completely melt and people will gradually adapt by migrating to places in the world where sea level is not a problem.

−1

D0m1R t1_jdz4s0j wrote

Lol.. EU argue about how to spread thousands of refugees, but millions wont be a problem sure

5

Regular_Dick t1_jdxoz20 wrote

Just put Mile Wide Recycled Plastic Space Balloons In Orbit Over the North and South Poles. The Shade they Cast in the Summer months will have the Ice Caps grown back in a Jiffy.

☀️🎈🌎🥶 (Not to Scale) ✌️

−4

TheRedBeardedPrick t1_jdz6j87 wrote

Slightly true. In around 27 years or so, it will be relocating to the "new" Equator. The impending magnetic pole excursion is happening now. Ever wonder why the Arora's are gaining more red?? Earth's magnet field is weakening, and more/stronger particles are making them (Arora's) more colourful. This is also the cause of larger and more powerful storms, better lighting, health issues, mental instabilities, the list goes on. This is also the reason why the climate is so screwy too. The Earth, she is a changing. Just wait for the Sun to go micro-novea. That will be a sight to see!!!! Are you ready??

−5

Exact-Permission5319 t1_jdxg8jy wrote

The whole climate has been at a tipping point for the last 30 years but it hasn't tipped. It's all a hoax.

−12

Responsible_Shoe_345 t1_jdx7ezr wrote

Al Gore and Obama are crying at thier million dollar beachfront properties. So sad.

−19

Ok_Drama8139 t1_jdxmlul wrote

Trump is the one with the beach front property….. for now.

3

Hugzzzzz t1_jdx7hzl wrote

We always see posts about ice melting, but we never see posts about other areas which are growing. Odd.

−21

Turtley13 t1_jdxd8rw wrote

Very odd that you can't provide a link to the data....

4

ialsoagree t1_jdyjqpy wrote

Because they're not.

Year over year, ice is declining.

It would be weird to see an article about something that's not happening.

1