Cutting Four Pollutants Would Slow Sea Level RiseJanuary 7, 20243 Commentsđď¸ 372đ Human? Slide comment captcha below and wait for the unlock button. (Cookies required) 3 thoughts on “Cutting Four Pollutants Would Slow Sea Level Rise” Reblogged this on The healthiest beauty. Reply For some context, check how much sea levels are currently rising – if I remember correctly, it is something like 3 millimeters per year. We don’t even know for sure what causes the rise. The assumption is that warming is responsible. Perhaps there is another mechanism at work here? And then … 3 mm of rise translate to about 30 cm in a century. Should we really call that a problem requiring an urgent solution? Reply If an average change of a small size over time results in more death and destruction, yes, we should take it seriously… but trying to save the Pacific Ocean from Fukishima seems more important. Reply Leave a Reply Name (required) Email (required) Website Comment Slide the puzzle piece or if you are a bot, use text CAPTCHA . In one word, what does nothingness smell like? Unlock
For some context, check how much sea levels are currently rising – if I remember correctly, it is something like 3 millimeters per year. We don’t even know for sure what causes the rise. The assumption is that warming is responsible. Perhaps there is another mechanism at work here? And then … 3 mm of rise translate to about 30 cm in a century. Should we really call that a problem requiring an urgent solution? Reply
If an average change of a small size over time results in more death and destruction, yes, we should take it seriously… but trying to save the Pacific Ocean from Fukishima seems more important. Reply
Reblogged this on The healthiest beauty.
For some context, check how much sea levels are currently rising – if I remember correctly, it is something like 3 millimeters per year.
We don’t even know for sure what causes the rise. The assumption is that warming is responsible.
Perhaps there is another mechanism at work here?
And then … 3 mm of rise translate to about 30 cm in a century.
Should we really call that a problem requiring an urgent solution?
If an average change of a small size over time results in more death and destruction, yes, we should take it seriously… but trying to save the Pacific Ocean from Fukishima seems more important.