←back to thread

Start your own Internet Resiliency Club

(bowshock.nl)
579 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 16 Jun 25 07:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.297s | source
Show context
adornKey[dead post] ◴[16 Jun 25 09:45 UTC] No.44287958[source]▶
[flagged]
t0lo ◴[16 Jun 25 11:11 UTC] No.44288454[source]▶
I tried to parse it by reading the intro and the conclusion. Is it trying to say some of the heating effects will be potentially saturated and limited when co2 increases, decreasing temperature? York and Princeton seem legit but don't know about how well received this is
replies(2): >>44288622 #>>44288633 #
1. throwaway43156 ◴[16 Jun 25 11:39 UTC] No.44288622[source]▶
They're saying "The effects of the first ton of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere is much higher than the effects of the next ton. Now there's so much CO2 in the atmosphere that dumping any more into it will have a negligible effect."

The implication is "There's no need to worry about CO2 at this point, it's already done the damage it can, so let's call our global warming concerns off". But the models may be suspect (see my other post), so I wouldn't go celebrate just yet. Let's at least wait for peer review or submission to a notable journal to see how well received it is.