|
There's a lot that individuals can do, despite feeling as though there's nothing we can do. 1. If you have the means, walk, bike, or take public transit. You use less oil that way, and if everyone did these things (some cannot due to distance and/or lack of transit infrastructure), there would be less demand for oil. 2. Speaking of less demand, individuals are what drives production and supply, so we can do without a lot of things that create this consumer culture where we're buying crap we don't need. 3. Figure out where your local politicians stand on environmental causes, and vote for those who have strong environmental policy. 4. Volunteer for local groups that help in some way, even if you're not going to cure climate change. For instance, I volunteer for a local group and help with water samples and analysis. The group is all volunteer-driven and ranges from students to scientists. Anyone can volunteer. 5. To understand the science behind climate change and other environmental issues, just start reading. Do not read corporation news, as they generally greenwash. Read scholarly articles, textbooks, and good science journals. Realize that reporters don't always get it right. There's no harm in taking general classes either, even if you don't work toward a degree. 6. It's good to get involved in some activism, and some protesting can change social climate. However, I've never felt comfortable joining in marches and chants; if you're not into that, find out what issues your local habitat faces and work on solving them. You can volunteer for a non-profit, go to public hearings, and register to make commentary on independent environmental panels and reviews regarding development in your area. There's a lot going on here in Canada, but you often have to do your own research and find out how to get involved and what's open to public commentary. Edit: I'm also wary of environmental activism that is not wholly based on science. I've seen groups in my local area of Vancouver, for instance, that I generally agree with, but some of their rhetoric is embarrassing and often they tangent off to unfair accusations. To me these groups can be equally as harmful as corporate greenwashing doing the same thing on the other end of the spectrum. Just an example: recently a degraded sample of wild salmon taken from Rivers Inlet was found to have 2 of 48 salmon infected with ISA. Never before has wild Pacific salmon been shown to have ISA. There's also a judicial inquiry on the decline of wild salmon, and they had closed but are now reopening for three more public meetings later this month. A later analysis on the same sample showed no ISA. Then a later report came out that showed that studies from a few years ago listed that several wild salmon (about 177 I think) had been infected with ISA. I'm still waiting to hear why that report was never published. One spokesperson said something about false positives. ISA is a virus that only affects farmed Atlantic salmon (though has evidently also been found in trout, which are asymptomatic), but suddenly you had a few groups claiming that ISA would kill Pacific salmon and cause their extinction. So far we don't know that. Pacific salmon might not be affected the same way as Atlantic salmon. I thought maybe that we could await studies and more testing before jumping to conclusions, and so I've been wary of some groups. Another problem is that BC is pretty bad at transparency and even enforcing its own environmental laws. The DFO scientists are often suspect in releasing reports and findings. It's true that if Pacific salmon in the wild were starting to get ISA, and also if it started to kill them off, we'd be seeing a possibility of extinction, but there's no reason to jump to that conclusion until we know more. However, if it turns out that ISA is degrading wild salmon stocks, aquaculture is going to be red in the face, and it's going to be bad news. It's also likely that declining fish habitat, warming waters, ocean acidification, and other things are causing the decline of wild salmon, including over-fishing. Sorry for the long-winded example, but it's important to research stuff before joining organizations that are based on rhetoric instead of science, even if they have good intentions. 7. Get outside and get to know your local watershed, terrain, and environmental history. I have found this instills a respect for nature and a desire to protect it. Hike around, get to know what species of flora and fauna are in your area. 8. Check out meetup.com. I've found some really active groups that get out every weekend doing things like hiking, removing invasive species, planting native trees, etc. 9. Don't litter, don't dump into rivers and onto land, organize cleanups in your area, don't dump chemicals down your drain, etc. 10. Back to the less consumerism, don't buy throwaway stuff, especially objects that don't break down, like polymers. It's kind of corny and obvious, but take a non-bpa container with you and fill it with water when needed. 11. If you have land, grow your own veggies, raise your own chickens, and so on. I guess these are pretty obvious, but there's a vast amount of things every single person can do. We are not going to solve climate change. Climate change is I believe past the point of stopping. But that doesn't mean we should throw our arms up in the air with abandon and in defeat, and continue with our history of pollution. Small changes can be significant, and every effort counts. Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 13, 2011 |
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Yes, there is absolutely and undeniably an element of antrhopogenesis in current climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121222251949941.htmlquote:Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the country's minister of the environment has said, making it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty. Climate disaster looks more and more inevitable every day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121222251949941.html It sounds like Canada signed up to do something it had no chance of pulling off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:It sounds like Canada signed up to do something it had no chance of pulling off. More like conservatives simply refuse to quote:The move does not come as a surprise, especially since Kent said last month that "Kyoto is the past". "it had no chance at pulling off" is exactly what climate disaster keeps looking more inevitable. The political will/ability to prevent climate disaster simply does not exist
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121222251949941.html Honestly, as I said in the Canada thread this is probably a good thing. Now the other countries can talk about it without our current loving government purposely derailing things
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:More like conservatives simply refuse to IIRC the Liberals didn't do much for it when they were in power either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
That kind of short sighted, selfish and above all ignorant way of looking at things is going to be our goddamn doom. Bad Canada, bad. At least the Liberals were pretending to care 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
Just posted in the Canada thread about this too, but it's time for a lot of people to start actively taking measures to block further oil sands development. Most First Nations and people in BC are against the Northern Gateway project, and there's recently been some fuss about a Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion that held no public hearings, even when requested to by several mayors and environmental groups. They are now increasing oil shipped via the Burrard Inlet each year. What we're going to start seeing is way more exports via our coastlines, especially if the Keystone pipeline doesn't get approved. Whether through land or by sea, either way is bad. Oil sands is bad news, and if Harper is going to embarrass Canada by doing nothing to reduce emissions, the people really have to step up and start protesting this crap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Stupid question: What are the practical consequences of all this? Things will get a few degrees warmer... doesn't that just mean that ecosystems will shift around a little, break apart, and then develop into new ones after a couple decades? I mean, just to be really ignorant for a second, if temperatures go up by, oh, four degrees, won't the things that grow in one spot move north/south/higher in latitude to an area that's currently four degrees cooler (as in, will be the same temperature that they're currently in)? I mean, I'm assuming this is completely wrong, I'm just not sure why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
zachol posted:Stupid question: What are the practical consequences of all this? Things will get a few degrees warmer... doesn't that just mean that ecosystems will shift around a little, break apart, and then develop into new ones after a couple decades? I'm no expert, but from my understanding temperatures are changing too rapidly for species to adapt. This interrupts evolution, and the process becomes unable to handle the change due to how fast it is happening. Evolution would normally handle (is that even the right word?) an environmental change for a species, but it works over longer time scales. In a short time scale it collapses, and there is an extinction event for many species. Those better educated can probably explain this better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:They're not some huge industry secret, several studies talked about/linked on this page discuss exactly what they are. What do you think the PR would be like if they started putting radiotags in fracking fluid? Organics (such a fuels) pick up radiation really easily and you know someone would run with a sensationalist headline. Also, no, fracking can't be responsible because a twenty meter fracture radius is well within the area where there isn't any increased permiability to aquifers which are often hundreds of meters away. Why the concern with PR over radiolabels? Also, "Organics...pick up radiation really easily"? What kind of blanket statement is that? Do you mean that high energy electrons in beta emission can reduce or cause the oxidation of aromatics? Or are you thinking of UV light absorption in delocalized systems? Also, a radiolabeled system does not have to be heavily emissive to be effective. You can use long half-life, naturally occurring isotopes with harmless decay mechanisms to do the exact same job. Hell, you don't even need to measure using decay, you can just use isotopic fractionation or mass spec with labeled organics that already occur to see if you're causing any issues. People will happily request or consent to PET scans, which involve intravenous injection of F19-labeled glucose molecules that are many, many orders of magnitude more hot than anything you would use for detecting groundwater contamination (not to mention that F19 does not occur naturally on earth...). My response to your assertion that fracking can't be responsible for groundwater contamination because a "20 meter fracture radius" won't possibly cause problems in aquifers "a few hundred meters away" (where do you get these numbers?) is to ask: is there any standardization in method in fracking? Does everybody drill the same size and use the same technique? As no regulation exists, my guess is no. You're making a lot of assumptions about the fracturing and gas extraction process and what happens during it. A major concern I can think of is the scenario you give where organics are preexisting. Since there is already interaction between organic deposits and groundwater, would the pressure of fracking and gas/petroleum product recovery possibly cause a change in equilibrium between the aquifer and organics? Because natural gas and other petroleum products are compressible and will potentially conduct that fracking pressure. You're so concerned with PR and conduct your defense of fracking with industry research, it makes me wonder if you might not have some sort of undisclosed financial interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
zachol posted:Stupid question: What are the practical consequences of all this? Things will get a few degrees warmer... doesn't that just mean that ecosystems will shift around a little, break apart, and then develop into new ones after a couple decades? Sea levels are going to rise a result of the temperature increase (melting ice, expanding water). I think it's projected they'll rise something like up to 2 feet higher by the end of the century. This is probably going to loving annihilate coastal regions and ecosystems. Yes, we will be seeing ecosystems shifting, things are going to change accordingly and organisms are going to adapt the best they can. It is no where near as simple as "moving up to a new habitat 4 degrees cooler". Keep in mind that a lot of organisms are adapted to a very specific set of conditions and simply moving up north sometimes isn't a possibility due to locomotory restrictions, an inability to compete with their new locals, or an incompatibility with environmental factors other than temperature. An interesting little result of the reduced amount of ice in the arctic as a result of global warming is our polar bear buddies moving south and even mating with more southerly bears (I forget the species). There's some dramatic (and impressive) adaptation for you. Some organisms are more sensitive to environmental changes than others, I suppose those who cannot adapt appropriately will be rightly hosed. There's a very delicate balance that has developed as a result of evolution, and everything is now being stirred up at a very rapid rate. edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid Here's the bear thing I was referring to. I guess it's not confirmed that climate change is wholly the reason for this, though it seems like a logical hypothesis to me. Pellisworth down below there described the issue with generalist/specialist organisms pretty well. Biodiversity is going to be taking a hit. vv Orbital Sapling fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Day and night length vary depending upon season more and more the further from the equator you go. A lot of green growing food-type things like both certain temperatures and certain amounts of light, so you can easily wind up with far shorter growing seasons. Shorter growing season = less food. Add in reduced area where things like that can grow and you have even less food. Tip that far enough and you cause problems. That's not the only issue though, you also have shifting weather patterns, more extreme weather events, extended droughts in some areas and floods in others, desertification, rising sea levels and a host of other issues. Life on earth will adapt, eventually, but we're in for a world of hurt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
downout posted:I'm no expert, but from my understanding temperatures are changing too rapidly for species to adapt. This interrupts evolution, and the process becomes unable to handle the change due to how fast it is happening. Evolution would normally handle (is that even the right word?) an environmental change for a species, but it works over longer time scales. In a short time scale it collapses, and there is an extinction event for many species. Those better educated can probably explain this better. There's an important distinction here between acclimation and evolutionary adaptation. Organisms will acclimate to higher temperatures, drier conditions, higher sea levels, etc to a certain degree. They can adjust, with varying amounts of success, to changes in their environment. Some can migrate (plants can't). However, those organisms evolved to excel in pre-industrial environments, and any significant changes will stress them. True evolutionary adaptation takes many many generations--hundreds to thousands of years depending on how quickly an organism reproduces to effect significant change. A Pretty Red-Bellied Jungle Frog may well survive a 4-degree increase, but it's not going to reproduce as well. It will have a harder time finding food. Eventually it might be out-competed by another organism which is better able to acclimate to the new conditions. Furthermore, consider that many (or most, I don't want to try and put a number on it) organisms actually live within a relatively small area with a very specific diet and require certain conditions for reproduction and optimal growth. They occupy a narrow ecological niche. It's a simple fact of evolution that most organisms, in order to survive, will become increasingly specialized in order to outcompete other organisms within the same ecosystem. It's absolutely true that there are some organisms that succeed by being generalists or "win" by being adaptable and resilient, but many organisms are highly specialized, and they will die off very easily. Sorry, I'm kind of hand-waving around some basic ecological principles here, but the point I'm trying to make is that specialized organisms will get hit incredibly hard by any significant climate changes. And 4 degrees is a HUGE change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:47
|
|
BobTheFerret posted:You're so concerned with PR and conduct your defense of fracking with industry research, it makes me wonder if you might not have some sort of undisclosed financial interest. This is just retarded. I can't both know what I'm talking about and not agree with your worldview without being a shill for big oil? I'm a loving igneous petrologist, not an oil guy. I'm just familiar with this area of geology. I've been backing out of this because it's clear people don't want to do anything more than yell at me about how wrong I am, since people were just fine making appeals to authority wrt geologists until they realized I am one and now I'm a shill. BobTheFerret posted:"Organics...pick up radiation really easily"? What kind of blanket statement is that? A fairly good one, geologically speaking. BobTheFerret posted:"20 meter fracture radius" won't possibly cause problems in aquifers "a few hundred meters away" (where do you get these numbers?) The equipment is fairly standard and the hydrostatic pressure required to frack more than a 20 meter radius is not really realistic. Groundwater exists as a lens usually well away from the deep reservoirs of fracking. But seriously, you're the second person to imply that I'm an industry shill so I'm out because that's just dumb as poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is just retarded. I can't both know what I'm talking about and not agree with your worldview without being a shill for big oil? I'm a loving igneous petrologist, not an oil guy. I'm just familiar with this area of geology. I've been backing out of this because it's clear people don't want to do anything more than yell at me about how wrong I am, since people were just fine making appeals to authority wrt geologists until they realized I am one and now I'm a shill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
Buffer posted:Life on earth will adapt, eventually, but we're in for a world of hurt. This sums things up very nicely. A dramatic change in the world climate is inevitable, we're just seeing it sooner than we'd like. poo poo was bound to go awry at some point, and the life that can persist will do so - that which cannot will die off like we've seen so many times throughout the Earth's evolutionary history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html Yikes, the methane thing was always the thing I was really worried about out of all the feedback loops
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I've been backing out of this because it's clear people don't want to do anything more than yell at me about how wrong I am, since people were just fine making appeals to authority wrt geologists until they realized I am one and now I'm a shill. Yes, please, if you're unable or unwilling to support and defend your viewpoints and assertions, goodbye. Part of me would still like some clarification on what you were asserting earlier about the Earth warming naturally, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know what WAFFLEHOUND is arguing anymore. Well...I'm an Authority...and Climate Change is real...there's dumb people on both extremes...but it's not all man made...and the changes might be slow and not that bad or maybe not and it will be awful? Can you be more concise? Start tweeting or something, it helps, honest to god. This kind of format can make us very pedantic and obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
I don't think you should leave, Wafflehound. I'm sure you have a lot of knowledge about some things which are useful to this thread. I didn't mean to imply you worked for industry earlier, though I did ask because a lot of industry downplays stuff like human involvement in climate change as well as stuff like fracking. Definitely wasn't an accusation or implication though. I don't think any debate is good without some degree of tension, but no disrespect meant on my part, even with different viewpoints. However, I don't notice anyone yelling really, no more so than yourself, to be fair. To add to the practical consequences described above, I think we shouldn't look solely at climate change in and of itself without configuring in contributing factors of resource extraction and pollution, which work in tandem to gently caress the planet and raise potential for positive feedbacks. A good way to really get an idea of the vast amount of changes already being caused by climate change is to set up a daily digest or news alert from any science journal or mag. The Georgia Straight intertidal mussels and barnacles having to move down to cooler waters and being threatened by stars that prey in the lower waters, greenhouse gas records set, sea ice melting, etc. Every day it is something new, from vast changes to tiny organism changes. The bigger practical consequences I think will be food shortages, dirty water, more disease, and resource wars. I think oil will stop being as important as it is now, and more basic essentials like water and food will be in demand. Edited for clarity. Shouldn't post when tired. Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 05:11
|
|
Pellisworth posted:An "element?" It's predominantly anthropogenic. Unless you're still arguing that Earth is undergoing significant natural warming, you seemed to be hinting that earlier. Which is patently false. We are presently at the warmest part of an interglacial period and relative to previous interglacial periods we're due "any time" (probably sometime in the next several thousand years) to cool back into a glacial period. Last post on the topic from me since this one keeps popping up, but interglacial periods aren't periods between ice ages, they're periods within an ice age where there is glacial retreat. Look up the quaternary ice age.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Last post on the topic from me since this one keeps popping up, but interglacial periods aren't periods between ice ages, they're periods within an ice age where there is glacial retreat. Look up the quaternary ice age. I am well aware, you seemed to be arguing earlier that anthropogenic climate change was acting in addition to natural warming of the Earth. In the absence of fossil fuel burning, however, we're actually due for another glacial cycle sometime in the next 10,000 or so years and the Earth is similarly warm to past interglacial cycles, there is no evidence to support the notion that Earth is warming naturally within a time frame relevant to this conversation. If I confused the terminology for glacial/interglacial cycles and ice ages, it was because this is largely a layman audience and the relevant point I was trying to make is Earth was due to get colder, not warmer, and human activity is sending us in the opposite direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:But seriously, you're the second person to imply that I'm an industry shill so I'm out because that's just dumb as poo poo. My apologies, but industry ties have been a huge problem in academic research, particularly in this field. There have been quite a few stories on Pennsylvania institutions (Penn State comes to mind), whose research faculty have been doing some very sketchy treatment of data in order to maintain large grants their geology departments (and other departments associated with the gas industry) receive. There's a 30 minute investigatorial segment on This American Life on the subject. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/440/game-changer Hopefully that might help explain why people could misconstrue your unusual degree of persistence and willingness to argue from authority (you don't often feel the need to explain your positions) for support of the industry. BobTheFerret fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Last post on the topic from me since this one keeps popping up, but interglacial periods aren't periods between ice ages, they're periods within an ice age where there is glacial retreat. Look up the quaternary ice age. Thanks for your input wafflehound- I think your arguments were all very clear and nuanced and I understand what you're explaining. There's a certain dogmatic theology to most climate change threads and it's nice to see some real input from an expert. Things in real life are rarely one sided or simple, so your information about fracking has helped me reconsider my opinions about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Alctel posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html I've been waiting for some news from this expedition. It certainly sounds bad but I guess we'll have to wait for actual data to know for sure. NoNotTheMindProbe fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:I've been waiting for some new from this expedition. It certainly sounds bad but I guess we'll have to wait for actual data to know for sure. Yeah, I wonder how bad this will end up being. It sounds pretty hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 08:30
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Right, and if you frack close to an aquifer, there will still have already been containment leakage by virtue of proximity. Therefore, contamination is not the fault of fracking. quote:There is contamination of the aquifer lens and contamination caused by deep reservoirs. The former is caused by disposal, the latter doesn't happen. The latter is also fracking. quote:This is a stupid statement. It's not like I have a stack of fracking research papers handy but it's still very well known within geology and very well understood. I've already told you where to find papers that back up what I say. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 10:36
|
|
|
Alctel posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 10:50
|
|
|
zachol posted:Stupid question: What are the practical consequences of all this? Things will get a few degrees warmer... doesn't that just mean that ecosystems will shift around a little, break apart, and then develop into new ones after a couple decades? You're completely wrong for a lot of environments: Islands - obviously, most organisms are going to have trouble leaving. Mountains - less obviously...they can only move up so far (and in fact they have been moving upward), and some organisms that live near the top would have nowhere to go. Also, the entire mountain may become unsuitable for all of its inhabitants if rainfall changes too much. And while they aren't separated by oceans, deserts can be just as deadly. That's why they're sometimes called "sky islands." Basically, birds are the only things equipped to escape, and even that might be tough. High latitudes - polar bears have nowhere to go. If it gets warm enough for forest to overtake tundra, caribou have nowhere to go. Tundra being replaced could mean decreased insect populations (tundra is basically mossy marshland, mosquitoes love it) which could be bad for migratory birds. Same with lakes and ponds shrinking. Precipitation in much of the arctic is actually pretty low...the only reason it isn't desert or nearly so is that it's frozen half the year...you get to use a year's worth of water in 4-6 months. Less time frozen means drier summers. And that's just on land: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Warming_Oceans_Starved_of_Oxygen.php Deleuzionist posted:This isn't logical. If contamination of groundwater by gas increases after fracking, fracking must surely be the cause. If proximity to a gas reservoir means there would already have been contamination, shouldn't that mean that fracking is unnecessary? VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 11:57
|
|
|
So, here's a question. Are there many/any key crops that are likely to come through a major climate shift largely unharmed without substantial scientific intervention? I'm not entirely clear on the temperature and moisture ranges that, say, corn or wheat are fond of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 12:21
|
|
|
Alctel posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html Reading this made my gut do a little flip flop. When the guys leading a survey about something they are worried about, a survey that was able to be organized entirely because of how worrying the predictions were, comes back with "it's way worse than we expected," that's frightening. I mean, I want to see the data, but based on descriptions of continuous outgassing 1000 meters across, I'm worried. I don't want to be a doom-sayer, but when something that has been implied to be involved in one or more mass extinction starts bubbling up from the ocean floor faster than you were expecting, it's hard to not feel completely hosed. So. Solutions: how can we a) stop or substantially slow continued release, b) capture and sequester a significant portion of the remaining release? Is there a way to put the safety back on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
You couldn't capture it, it's releaseing from a massive area the size of entire countries. You could try to cool it, but any kind of cooling mechanism apart from a giant sunshade would take energy to run and that energy would have to come either from a source that emits CO2 or a source that would take enormous amounts of CO2 emissions to build and maintain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 12:40
|
|
|
Alctel posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html "Hey you know that worst-case scenario we were going to check out? Welllll...."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 12:42
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:So, here's a question. There are a fair few of varieties of things like corn and wheat http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2011/04/geographic-wheat-class-areas-in-us.html Plus many varieties can tolerate a wide range of conditions. Look at Hard Red Winter Wheat (blue); that's planted from southern Texas to the Canadian border, which covers an enormous range of temperature, humidity, soil type and light regime. It's certainly likely the crops grown in a particular area will change, but with the variety of food crops available to humanity, we should be able to find SOMETHING edible that will grow in any given environment short of hard desert and tundra.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:There are a fair few of varieties of things like corn and wheat This is also one of the prime areas that GM crops will address moving forward. Curbing the anti-GMO and organic food movements is one of the most vital points in minimizing the effects of climate change on agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Alctel posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html Jesus christ... this almost seems like the most significant aspect of all Climate Change related news, or at least the most significant at the current moment. Why is nobody talking about this? I mean, I know why, but jesus. Can anyone with more scientific background elucidate how much this will accelerate things? It almost seems like everyone under the age of 60 will see the mass extinction of the entire human race and should probably find a painless suicide method...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
global tetrahedron posted:Jesus christ... this almost seems like the most significant aspect of all Climate Change related news, or at least the most significant at the current moment. Why is nobody talking about this? I mean, I know why, but jesus. Can anyone with more scientific background elucidate how much this will accelerate things? It almost seems like everyone under the age of 60 will see the mass extinction of the entire human race and should probably find a painless suicide method... It is odd that at times I hope the deniers are right and it is all just a big conspiracy borne of wild fantasy. Unfortunately, facts are indicating that we are entering a very dangerous period of time. Whereas before we were talking about major climate changes becoming gradually evident over decades, if the above story is as bad as it sounds we are entering the "it doesn't matter anymore" zone of how much we can mitigate the worst effects of Climate Change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
In the worst case we can simply lower global temperature by adding certain chemicals to the atmosphere. Problem is, that's going to have a bunch of unforeseen effects, so we really, really don't want to do that. However, if things get really desperate, climate modification is probably our last resort. Knowing the world, it will probably come to that, and then everyone will get cancer at thirty or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 20:13
|
|
