I understand what you are saying but it was the democratic process that got us here. China and other countries our size do not have same regulations. Will only reducing the Western Hemisphere CO2 actually do what is needed if this is an actual crisis.

Hello again and thank you for answering my question earlier. One follow up. I understand you are saying that increase in CO2 is an issue but CO2 is not a pollutant. It was present the day we were born. So why does adding CO 2 to the atmosphere hurt us? There are 400 trees for every person on earth and each tree provides oxygen for approximately 3 people. Are we at risk of O2 issues if we reduced carbon? I know the 21 to 12 % rule of oxygen inhaled, but have you measured the back end of the reduction?

The estimate of 3/4 largely derives from the fossil record of marine animals. And that means that if a particular fossil species has not yet been discovered, we cannot know if it went extinct.

Our own work does not predict extinction in 2100. Instead it identifies the end of the present century as a time when the total CO2 added to the oceans will likely exceed a value that in the past has been associated with mass extinctions. See also our other comment here.

Among the many ways to answer this question, we’ll choose a path consistent with our topic: rates of change matter. So while plants may ultimately flourish in a world with higher CO2 levels, the fast
rates of change of our current situation risk triggering instabilities in the Earth system and/or very bad outcomes for human society.

The news report states that it was water collected from the ground on their property. It does not mention any testing whatsoever. There are many reasons why that water might be green, including that it may be related to the release, but without testing, there is no way to know. This is not water from the tap. All tap water monitoring in the area has come up clean so far. https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/train-derailment-east-palestine-resident-refuses-sign-form/

Maybe the most important thing individuals can do (in democracies) is to vote and support initiatives that advocate for solutions to climate change. We have not worked with policymakers but we have
much respect and admiration for their difficult work.

The greatest threat to humanity stemming from climate change may be the possibility of social strife (due, e.g., to displaced populations) and its interaction with a host of other problems that results in widespread warfare. This is an important but still poorly understood subject.

I want to start webinars for CTO. What topics would you advise to cover?

10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years, which is about as much as in the last 100 years, according to https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html.

State and federal governments require that facilities evaluate potential exposure and notify nearby residents of potential exposures. So if no one is knocking on your door, or if you haven't received a notification from the state or someone else, then there probably isn't and immediate threat. However, that is based on known releases and doesn't necessarily account for fugitive emissions. If you are curious about what issues certain industries have around your neighborhood, a good place to start looking is the EPA ECHO website (see link below). You can pull up nearby facilities to see how well they are doing with compliance and in certain states you can look up the actual permits online anonymously. Other states may require an official FOIA request.

https://echo.epa.gov/

Thanks for your question. We think that 100% renewable energy might be an elusive goal, but anything we can do to put less CO2 in the atmosphere is of interest. As scientists we recognize that many industries contribute disproportionately to CO2 emissions. The question then becomes how to develop appropriate policies to deal with problems in which different groups may have different views as to what is important and should be prioritized. As we say elsewhere in this thread, the democratic process probably has an important role to play here.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoxdDpugVqh/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

How can the average person determine their health threat level of residing near chemical production/storage facilities?

[removed]

Thanks for the question! See our other response here.

[removed]

Thanks for the question! Our knowledge of Graham Hancock’s work is currently limited to a few internet searches (Dan) and a few episodes of his Netflix show (Constantin), but we wanted to make sure we got around to answering this.

A first important point is that our own work focuses on catastrophes that occurred much further back in time: many millions of years rather than tens of thousands, and way before humans even evolved as a species. So our own technical knowledge is still rather different than that needed to evaluate archaeological claims about past civilizations, and to productively wade into the debate surrounding his work.

The events themselves are also rather different in scale: any extinction that may have occurred during the Younger Dryas is still relatively minor in the grand history of life (if otherwise, this would have been observed in the fossil record), while some of the events we’ve been considering genuinely wiped out a large fraction of species present at the time.

On the whole (and speaking now more generally), we do think that questions of past climate changes and societal collapse are interesting ones that deserve to be looked at. Beyond pure intellectual interest, better understanding whether/how climate changes caused collapse in the past seems quite important for humanity’s future.

Whats the cyvle? Can you Show another time this happened? If not, how can it be cyclical?

Regarding the drinking/tap water, if you are going to make claims like this, then please provide evidence. Without evidence, people can make all types of claims. Air is the primary concern for nearby residents as it is the only complete exposure pathway at the moment unless they are rolling around in the mud near the spill site. HAZMAT crews who specialize in Level A/B PPE (respirators) can cleanup the site in timed intervals using a zoned cleanup plan.

Air isn’t the only concern either, their streams look like nuclear waste from the fallout of the burn. I don’t see how this was best case scenario at all. What is hazmat for, if not for the cleanup of hazardous materials. Their tap water is literally green. How are they supposed to shower? What is that going to do to the plumbing and sewer systems?

Could have. Wow we folow the could have science.

What are your findings for the US hottest year of 1934, and the other 3 top 10 hottest years on record in the 1930's?

I worked at a bulk liquid storage terminal once where they stored turpentine. I couldn't get the smell out of my nose or clothes for like a week but all air monitoring in the area was clean. Smell is a weird thing and its amazing how powerful our noses can be.

It isnt?

>isn't

It is also important to note that the smell that folks report, while unsettling, may not be VC or any VOC's. Comingling COC's make something special. I miss my days responding to these things... The sweet xylenes...