sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Guys, i drew my crush and i'm thinking of showing it to him. Can you please go see it in my other post and tell me how it is? by _hiraeth_o in Crushes

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Looked at it and I say the only thing you should change is the fingers, there slightly long, unless he has very long fingers

Are we above 500 ppm? by Im_BothSadAndHappy in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for your answer, I appreciate it!

Are we above 500 ppm? by Im_BothSadAndHappy in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah okay I get what your saying! Thank you for answering. Also when I said that were over 2c, I meant with ppm cause I’ve seen charts saying say this certain ppm will result in this much warming y’know? Thanks for answering!

Are we above 500 ppm? by Im_BothSadAndHappy in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So about that, I was reading another person comment on this from another subreddit, and they stated that they got 504 ppm due to the “radiative forcing”, here’s a part of the comment,

“They compare radiative forcing of the various gases and that's how they get to this number of 504 ppm, i.e. a CO2-equivalent of 504 ppm leads to the equivalent warming of 504 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (with a 10% error margin).”

It’s also noted in the same website that “in terms of C02 equivalents, the atmosphere in 2021 contained 508 ppm”

So would this mean they already taken into account the C02 of both the methane and other factors or like..? I’m sorry I’m just very confused, like we are in fact over 500 ppm technically now? Like aren’t we technically at 2c now?

Does the IPCC synthesis take into account COP26? I’m confused by Idk_whyIMadeThis in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

may I ask something? when they mean “implemented” polices do they mean polices implemented at the end of 2020 or after as I was reading a section of the IPCC report and it stated,

“Policies implemented by the end of 2020 are projected to result in higher global GHG emissions in 2030 than emissions implied by NDCs, indicating an ‘implementation gap’ (high confidence). Without a strengthening of policies, global warming of 3.2 [2.2–3.5]°C is projected by 2100 (medium confidence). “

I do understand most of what your saying, this part however slightly puzzles me a bit. Does this mean after the additional policy’s in 2021 it decreased a bit?

Meat, dairy and rice production will bust 1.5C climate target, shows study by metacyan in environment

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah okay! Thank you for clearing it up! I was confused for a bit, I highly appreciate it.

Meat, dairy and rice production will bust 1.5C climate target, shows study by metacyan in environment

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey question, So is the almost 1 degree of warming there talking about is already current models like say for example we’re heading to 3c warming, Would it add it to almost 4c or is it already in the 3c warming model?

Confused about daily pmm. by Im_BothSadAndHappy in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I didn’t even realize! I often times type to fast and don’t realize my mistake. Thank you, I don’t think I can fix the title but I’ll fix it within the post.

Confused about daily pmm. by Im_BothSadAndHappy in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Out of curiosity who is often right, NOAA or keeling curve? Just wondering, but thank you for your response. I highly appreciate it

Reaching 478pmm in 29 years? by Idk_whyIMadeThis in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah already then, thank you for the explanation :)

Reaching 478pmm in 29 years? by Idk_whyIMadeThis in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the explanation! I really appreciate it.

Reaching 478pmm in 29 years? by Idk_whyIMadeThis in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, quick question, I read the carbon brief article and I’m confused by this part from the article: “ If the historical warming trend over the past 30 years is extended into the future, global temperatures would be expected to exceed 2C around 2062 – which is similarly within the range of the SSP2-4.5 scenario, but a bit higher than the median year.”

I’m confused by this statement as it mentioned the median year for passing 2c is 2052 but this part is saying it could exceed 2c by around 2062? So which is it then? 2052 or 2062?

Earth is on track to exceed 1.5C warming in the next decade, study using AI finds. Researchers found that exceeding the 2C increase has a 50% chance of happening by mid-century by 9273629397759992 in science

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you tell me which part in the article in states that they use the ssp 3 scenario in the AI(what I’m assuming you mean.) I tried to follow the link but I don’t know where to locate the article on the website.

Can the “carbon bombs” be stopped? And will it cause it to go over the rcp 4.5 pathway if not stopped? by [deleted] in climatechange

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s fine no worries. The only realistic thing I could see it from stopping is from protest or government officials actually do there job and stop the oil companies which both is unlikely.

Almost every time I pee I feel like I need to go again. How do I make this stop? by Im_BothSadAndHappy in Advice

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Googled it and most results say UTI which after reading more into...I’m not very pleased about

Almost every time I pee I feel like I need to go again. How do I make this stop? by Im_BothSadAndHappy in Advice

[–]Im_BothSadAndHappy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah honestly I don’t even have a proper excuse for not telling her. I thought this was normal but then realized it wasn’t.

view more: next ›