Dear Aliens,
Please wipe out humanity for the sake of our planet.
Thanks in advance
Newt

*doublepromote

Unfortunately this mindset has destroyed our planet.

It's far more responsible and less damaging to regret something you haven't done.

Usually when people regret not doing something it's because they regret missing out on an experience or personal gains. Usually when people regret something they've done, it's because it was disastrous and the experience was not worth the cost to themselves and others.

Carefully

None of the endothermic reactions in this video have been suggested as methods to regulate global temperature, because even if they could be scaled up enough to make a global difference they don't address the systems which regulate the earth's temperature.

Some things which have affected global temperatures either up or down are:

• Volcanic eruptions can cause global cooling, for example the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption released around 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide causing global cooling of approx 0.5°C over the following three years (ref: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change and https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/ )
  
• Increased rates of erosion of the right type of rocks can increase CO₂ absorption and reduce global temperatures that way, https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-weathering-rocks-cooled-earth#gs.cmy3h0
  
• Cyanobacteria, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/evolutionary-accident-probably-caused-worst-snowball-earth-episode-study-shows-1026
  

Your video, Our Planet | Walrus | Behind the Scenes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Nuclear energy is the only way we can do it, we can run the planet forever and do things cleanly and more densely to leave more of our planet for wildlife.

The trouble is almost everything we hold as common wisdom about it is completely wrong, using breeder reactors have enough uranium to run the planet forever leaving almost no waste and removing the possibility of big accidents which actually aren't as harmful as commonly believed anyway.

We have thorium too, and many designs of each that can do the job. In fact we have a wealth of of options, but also a decades old and highly effective PR campaign from the fossil fuel industry to convince us otherwise.

Your video, Our Planet | Teaser | Netflix, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Another deaf moron who's ears don't work when his lips move, which is constantly, but he might still be the best listener at Fox....but realize that bar rests so low it's somewhere within the iron core of our planet.
Like the rest of the right, they invite other opinions to speak not in order to listen, but solely for the opportunity to talk over them smugly and create red herrings by not paying attention and making up claims about what the other said or believes out of thin air.
I sometimes hope Trump can enact some truth in journalism law like he says he wants but with a real, unbiased referee deciding what's proven fact and what's ignorant opinion masquerading as fact, and public consequences for the networks at the very least amounting to unimpeachable fact checking, because that will end right wing media outlets day one. They all do this, rant loudly over guests they don't agree with, because their arguments can't withstand honest debate with knowledgeable people, so those people can't be allowed to be heard by their audience.
Why they still give Faux those opportunities is beyond me, Faux must pay lefties a mint to come on.

I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I enjoy hearing the reasoning of others and think that truth is found through dialogue. I agree that we should each try to produce less pollution. I defaulted to a criticism of China's role, as a nation, in reducing global Co2 emissions because...well, that's how the Paris Accord differentiated between the signatories, as well as that being a fairly logical division, i.e. the largest defacto groupings able to decide environmental policy. What a nightmare it would be to have 7.5 billion individuals each come up with their own plan to lessen their own carbon footprint, and then get everyone to sign on.

I know that opinions will differ between what's ideal and what's realistic. Some will say that realistically we'll need to let the undeveloped and "developing" nations catch up by allowing them to increase and continue emitting Co2. Some will say that it's idealistic to assume that our planet's climate will be that forgiving re. the additional damage and time taken to attempt international equity. Others might transpose those two opinions, or come up with yet another view. I'm more than happy to listen carefully and respond thoughtfully.

My own take on all of this isn't fully formulated. But I do wish my home country, the USA, would do more. I wish we didn't have The Donald. And I wish China's rising nationalism would morph into a detente so that every nation could better allocate the necessary resources to mitigating this climate crisis.

I'm torn by our pulling out of Paris. I think it's critical that we all cooperate to reduce our Co2 emissions. But I also understand that at least what China offered (not) to do is the single biggest factor in our future success (failure).

Their "reductions" are tied to points of GDP compared to 2005 levels, meaning that they can either reduce their emissions, or grow their economy faster than their emissions grow. The latter is what is happening.

Their contribution is to try to have their reliance on coal "peak" by or prior to 2030. At the moment, they are emitting over 30% of the world's Co2, with the US at about 17%. But even when and if China's Co2 emissions peak, they almost certainly won't fall...they will plateau. As we speak, China is building dozens of new coal-fired power plants...and these new plants, along with those already built, have life spans of at least 50 years. So when you hear talk of China's already reducing their emissions, they aren't speaking of real reductions, rather lowered percentages as a ratio of growing GDP. For example, China emitted over 5,800,000 kilotons of Co2 in 2005, and 10,600,000 kilotons in 2015. Yet China's nominal GDP was only US$2.3 trillion in 2005, and a whopping US$11.1 trillion in 2015. So as a ratio of GDP, China's emissions appear to have decreased. The opposite is true, and they'll continue this farce for as long as possible. Now, some will answer with things such as:

A. But America pollutes more per capita!
B. But China deserves to have a per capita GDP that rivals that of the US!
C. You should be comparing GDP per capita or PPP!

To which I answer...our planet's climate and environments don't give a damn about these abstractions. What matters is the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases being emitted.

So, I guess we won't keep warming under two degrees Celsius. Because it's more important that China's per capita GDP of about US$8,000 grows to match the US$56,000 of the US. In effect, if populations stayed the same, and the US economy stagnated...we'd need to wait for China's nominal GDP to grow to US$77.7 trillion compared to the US's $17 trillion.

Let me just add that if China were allowed to grow that powerful, polluting all the while, then the free nations of our planet would have graver problems than climate change.

You may think that China is a poor country without the current means to effect a major transition. To which I'll answer that their government and state-run corporations could stop buying foreign businesses and real estate, as well as not building more missiles, planes, rockets, blue-water navies, and man-made islands...and perhaps put those funds toward an honest shift toward green energy.

Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"

It's like the doctors have given you second and third opinions and told you your liver is failing, you have to stop drinking or you'll die. You won't die the next time you have a beer, but every beer takes you farther over the edge. You can say the bartender who knows this is blameless for serving you, because others gave you the alcohol that destroyed your liver and it took longer than one night, or you can work from now and realize that he's intentionally killing you in hopes of a tip before you stumble outside and keel over.
Working from today, our planet's liver is failing, there no transplant, and Trump just reopened the bar and is serving everclear. Chances are he can't accelerate things so much that Florida submerges in the next 3 1/2 years, that doesn't mean he can't make things be far worse, beyond the point of possible mitigation.

You may hold that theory, but climatologists disagree. We are past, but still near the tipping point, and every ton of CO2 takes us farther from a survivable rise. It's ridiculous to think that we're already past holding at 3.5 degrees global rise (edit: the maximum assumed to be survivable by civilization), so we might as well make it 5 degrees.

Island nations, people who live South of New Orleans, and millions of others are already being displaced. It only takes one high tide (edit: or one extended drought) to wipe out low lying farmland permanently, and erosion has become an unstoppable force.

Trump is moving towards raising the level of multiple greenhouse gases we produce, Obama had us lowering those levels. Time can only tell what that actually means in tonnage, but 180 degree turnaround is awful enough. I agree, we also didn't do enough under Obama.

? Reversible means it can be reversed, not that it's easy. I don't know where you get that idea. Irreversible in this context means sending the temperature trend the other way before civilization becomes unsustainable. Eventually the planet should normalize unless we really follow Trump's lead wholeheartedly, then we might go full Venus. There WAS a magic bullet, being responsible with our atmosphere, but we argued over climate change until it was useless.

If, before it reverses (which it may not do at all, btw) the planet becomes inhospitable to humans, then for humans, it's irreversible. In 4 years we can do enough damage to 1) make the effects longer and harsher enough to make long term survivability impossible and or 2) go beyond the next tipping point where feedback loops reinforce each other, leading to a Venus like runaway greenhouse effect. We're damn close to massive methane releases (already happening) and if we don't avoid that, nothing will save civilization.
All that said, Clinton probably wouldn't do enough to avoid disaster either, but at least she accepted the science and agreed we should make efforts to mitigate the coming damages.

I'm definitely a pessimist, mostly because I understand the systems and human nature, and so I think we're totally hosed as a species.

"I don't want to be a multi-planet species." Does this dork think Earth's going to last forever? What happened to, "Space, the final frontier." Bill?

I agree we take care of our planet, but there's no reason to give up on exploring the cosmos. Jeez!

No I am not. Science totally relies on cause & effect.

Science has methods to distinguish correlation from causality. Causality means repeatable results, possibility of practical use and my hypocritical benefit. Correlation means randomness and no reason to invest.

Im not against the notion of global warming or nuclear winter.

As far as nuclear winter is concerned I dont think there is much difference between a frozen planet and one that is merely a "few" degrees colder than normal for a couple of years. In either case humans are done for. So while the hype was overdone, reality is just as frightening.

Global warming is a projection into the future, and the future is one of the hardest things to predict. I am happy to agree that we are f*cking up our planet and need to stop ASAP. There are measurable indicators that are clearly out of bounds, conclusively because of human activity.

The political hype (of climate change) is a big risk - if the climate straightens out because of external factors humans might be tempted to not stop f*cking up their environment.

Lets stick to facts and not overemphasize various projections.

wut the chicago cubs .....won

man the end of the world must be really coming.

I'm sick of the 'save our planet' crap...it's 'save our species'.
We think we are just luckier than the dinosaurs...it might be our time.

you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm. mixing situations of conflict with situations with no conflict and equating sentient life with non-sentient life since it is impossible to live without killing, it is also imperative to do the least harm possible and that can be accomplished by first refusing to murder sentient animals in the name of pleasure and profit. in many countries the vast majority of humans also used to strongly believe that a white person's life was much more valuable than a black person's life but that did not make it so.

it is telling that one would consider the torture and murder of 60 billion+ sentient beings every year in the name of a trivial taste preference as a mere "pet project". in fact, many organizations are finally coming to realize that it IS the most critical issue humans and the planet are facing. here is but one of countless examples:
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-environmental-law-journal-elj/blog/leading-cause-everything-one-industry-destroying-our-planet-and-our-abil
ity-thrive-it

even if one does not accept the idea of animal rights and the equality of sentient beings, if non-human animals matter morally (as they obviously do to the man in the video in question and anyone who likes this story), this short article will explain why not eating or using non-human animals is the only logically consistent response:

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/veganism-without-animal-rights/