It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: namelesss
originally posted by: whywhynot
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: whywhynot
Perhaps if the climate really does change in 100,000 or 200,000 years
Are you not on Earth?
Are you in a cement bubble?
6 years here?
How deep the denial?
I don't think that there is anywhere on this planet Earth that does not experience weather instability/unpredictability.
Other than in your bubble, that is, but it must get pretty stale in there... *__-
So ridiculous attacks and ridicule is your method of comment and debate. Not very advanced.
Will all these effects increase with an increase of UV-B irradiance? That is the first impression. Closer study indicates that this is not necessarily so.
Drawing upon all possible measures instead of waiting for first-best solutions
"As scientists we are looking at all possible futures, not just the positive ones," says co-author Wolfgang Lucht from PIK. "What happens in the worst case, a widespread disruption and failure of mitigation policies? Would plants allow us to still stabilize climate in emergency mode? The answer is: no. There is no alternative for successful mitigation. In that scenario plants can potentially play a limited, but important role, if managed well." The scientists investigated the feasibility of biomass plantations and CO2 removal from a biosphere point of view. To this end, they used global dynamic vegetation computer simulations.
So far, biomass plantations as a means for CO2 removal have often been considered as a comparatively safe, affordable and effective approach. "Our work shows that carbon removal via the biosphere cannot be used as a late-regret option to tackle climate change. Instead we have to act now using all possible measures instead of waiting for first-best solutions," says co-author Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter, UK. "Reducing fossil fuel use is a precondition for stabilizing the climate, but we also need to make use of a range of options from reforestation on degraded land to low-till agriculture and from efficient irrigation systems to limiting food waste."
"In the climate drama currently unfolding on that big stage we call Earth, CO2 removal is not the hero who finally saves the day after everything else has failed. It is rather a supporting actor that has to come into play right from the beginning, while the major part is up to the mitigation protagonist," says co-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of PIK. "So this is a positive message: We know what to do -- rapidly ending fossil fuel use complemented by a great variety of CO2 removal techniques. We know when to do it -- now. And if we do it, we find it is still possible to avoid the bulk of climate risks by limiting temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius."
An air pollutant is a substance in the air that can have adverse effects on humans and the ecosystem. The substance can be solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. A pollutant can be of natural origin or man-made. Pollutants are classified as primary or secondary. Primary pollutants are usually produced from a process, such as ash from a volcanic eruption. Other examples include carbon monoxide gas from motor vehicle exhaust, or the sulfur dioxide released from factories. Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather, they form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact. Ground level ozone is a prominent example of a secondary pollutant. Some pollutants may be both primary and secondary: they are both emitted directly and formed from other primary pollutants.
We have thousands and thousands of years to fix the problem, before it actually becomes a problem, and fossil fuels are estimated to run out in 500 years.