While true, we don’t know how it’s gonna progress in the future. It takes time for changes to really set in, and as time goes on the differences are larger as we emit a lot more pollution now than we did 40 years ago.
It could be that there’s an inherent 30+ years lag, and we’re seeing just the start of changes. Either way, the fact that it is definitively getting weaker is worrying.
Waiting until it’s slowed 100% isn’t helpful. At that point, you’re way beyond the point of no return for cascading climate collapses.
4% is concerning because this sort of thing shouldn’t happen period, let alone over a relatively short period of 40 years. Think of it as an early warning. Except, it’s probably still too late to address the problem.
With all of the carbon emissions put into the atmosphere since the dawn of fossil fuels, we’re literally seeing the effects of carbon from like 50-70 years ago. What will the gulf stream do in another 50-70 years once today’s carbon emissions start affecting climate?
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just saying that the ice caps are melting like 10% every 2 years, carbon and methane emissions are through the roof, sea life and birds are going extinct, the oceans are hitting triple digit temperatures, half of north america is on fire, people are dying of heat stroke, and on and on. Yes this sucks too but damn, look around.
4% in 40 Years is just a rookie number, the last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. We don’t even know when the Gulf Stream weakening starts to occur.
The voting ratio seems to indicate that yes, this is in fact considered a relevant news item by the community but you can and should downvote it if you disagree. Now that we’ve cleared that up, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion or are you just here to whine because I posted an article in two relevant communities?
I have no doubt you are well trained and safety conscious. Despite living in a none right to bear arms country I’ve also had some training on safe handling of firearms through cadets. I think we agree that safety training for handling firearms is a good thing.
However this obviously isn’t a mandatory requirement in the states as evidenced by the number of children who have been killed because firearms have not been securely stored. The US does seem unwilling to have any regulation to improve firearm safety lest it be seen as an infringement on a universal “right”.
While that may be true, they are probably also weighing that this has been a long strike. I don’t know about you, but if I had to go 100+ days without working, my finances would be a wreck. Reality is, people gotta eat
Noone is disenfranchised. By choosing to elect an executive nationally it only makes sense to popularise the vote. Why should Wyoming citizens have more sway than California (per capita)
Democrats in Texas might as well not even vote under the current winner take all system. If the electoral points were awarded proportionally then Clinton would have won against Trump.
Why should Wyoming citizens have more sway than California (per capita)
That’s only happening because the size of the HoR was set at 435 in 1929. Fix that and suddenly Wyoming’s 3 EC votes would be a drop in the bucket…even per Capita.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.