Is 500 gigatons the amount of carbon humans have emitted since the begin of time?

No offense but all these numbers are useless given the massive scale of the quantity of a percentage increase or decrease from a reference point.

The only metric that is relevant in terms of climate change is the amount of emissions and in particularly the progression towards climate targets.

A fair question would be how far a country has progressed towards that target?

What if a liquid (e.g. acetone) with a lower boiling point (57C for acetone) is used?

The outsourcing of emissions hit it's peak at the beginning of 2008. Then the financial crisis hits and the outsourcing of emissions decreased significantly. Currently, China is responsible for their own emissions which is the result of domestic growth and in particular the construction sector.

Similarly, we can argue that "the east" had outsourced emissions in the 1950s to the 1990s to "the west" since the manufacturing happened in "the west". In fact, China's rapid growth was made possible by western companies and products, yet this isn't accounted for today as well.

In reality the outsourcing of emissions is way to complex to attribute it to actual policy making or distribution of emissions on a global level.

Edit, added source:

> That said, these transfers only account for a fraction of the rise in developing country emissions. Which makes sense. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage

> Instead of investing in renewable energy, they're doing everything they can to contribute to global warming.

This is a lie. China invests more in renewable energy than any other country and per capita the US emmits 4 times more than China. On top of that, China produces products for the rest of the world. If the average Chinese person spent as much as the average American, China would produce 4 times the amount of CO2 they produce now. Luckily for us, Chinese dont't waste nearly as much as Americans.

For it to emit the majority they would need to emit more than 50%.

What you mean is that they are the country that currently emits the most. Although if we look for cummulative CO2, the US wins by a lot, then it is the European Union and then China. This matters because the C02 that is warming up the environment is not just what we emmit every year, but what we have emmited over all.

China is currently the main emissor, and they do need to do something about it (and they are doing it by being the biggest clean energy producer), but let's not forget that they are the second most populated country in the world and that they manufacture products for the rest of the planet too. The US, in comparison with only a small fraction of their population, pollutes too much.

I’m not saying we can reverse every problem we’ve created but we damn well know how to substantially lower the damage we’re causing and mitigate future damages. One year of COVID alone created more positive change than we thought even possible. As I stated above, the only issue is politics. It’s a lot more than just “not really wanted.” It’s almost completely not cared about.

But humans being humans, we'll start to act once all ice has melted and cities are flooding already. It's just not profitable to act pre-emptively on a scale that would make a difference.

What is it???? Now you have to tell. You can’t leave me hanging like this.

Yeah I don't think there really is. You can't change physics. We haven't hit the wall yet, but we are too fast to halt before impact. And yes. Politically it's not really wanted.

I saw an article about this, not a paper, but it seems promising.

There is always a way to stop all of this. Hell, there are ways.

What we lack is the political fortitude to make it so.

e+th, but pretty nice if they can keep the price low

They’ve successfully eradicated a form of cancer (I don’t remember which) in their entire study group using this technique.

Yeah because that figure is massively misleading

I know it’s been successful in treating one kind of cancer; have there been further developments with other types?

>CINDELA program

You mean Cancer-Specific InDel Attacker (Cindela) ? I didnt know they use reprogrammed viruses...

These figures are probably accurate, but they don't tell the whole story. How so?

Consider that much of the emissions from China stem from manufacturing of products that get exported to places like Europe and the US.

tldr; We buy cheap stuff from China and then scold them for the CO₂

Mechatronics/Automation tech has a 100% job placement in my area, also the degree I'm pursuing. Look at placement numbers from your local universities.

I think you already know philosophy isn't going to pay the bills.

Do whatever you want. I've retrained 4 or 5 times in the last 30 years. I don't have a set idea of what job I must do all my life. AI is just a tool don't be frightened by it. Learn to use the tools at hand.

Friedman Dyson proposed an actual sphere. But in practice the sphere would be very difficult to keep in orbit. A small imbalance and it would destabilize and fall into the sun.

Swarms are much more easily executable.

They are not the same thing.

> And we were talking Dyson sphere not swarm.

A Dyson sphere is a swarm. Sphere is a misnomer. It was always a swarm.

You're assuming all the materials are useful. While infact you need metals. Luckily mercury has an iron core. And we were talking Dyson sphere not swarm. A swarm would be much easier, as it requires much less material, much less stabilisation. And you can construct it a segment at a time.

A Dyson swarm at 0.1 au would also be very toasty.

Jesus: Yeah wait until you have a mission 2000 years from now. I'm still getting ready.

A 1mm thick swarm at 0.1AU would need around 7% of the mass of Mercury. It's supposed to farm energy from the Sun so it has to tolerate heat. And just 1% of this is a trillion times Earth's current energy consumption.