|
Radbot posted:Oh goody, we're delving into the "yes Earth will be a horrific hellscape filled primarily with cockroaches and pigeons, but TECHNICALLY we will still be able to live so who gives a poo poo" thing again. Who cares if the majority of edible ocean life dies, there's a hydroponic lettuce farm in Japan? Dont forget the endless wheat fields of Greenland.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Oh goody, we're delving into the "yes Earth will be a horrific hellscape filled primarily with cockroaches and pigeons, but TECHNICALLY we will still be able to live so who gives a poo poo" thing again. Who cares if the majority of edible ocean life dies, there's a hydroponic lettuce farm in Japan? Actually, if there's anoxic event, that hydrogen sulfide does not stay in the ocean. It evaporates, and it comes down as rain. And in case you don't know, hydrogen sulfide has the same effect on aerobic life as cyanide. It shuts down the electron transfer chain. It kills all oxygen based life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What you're saying would make more sense if the scientific consensus even approached BAU == "majority of edible ocean life dies" but it doesn't. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html Good point, I'm sure there won't be any decline in fishery productivity due to climate change. Oh wait, the majority of fish eaten for food will be farmed within 20 years (which is precisely what I claimed). But that's not related to climate change, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html How exactly are you planning on farming fish in an ocean that kills all oxygen breathing life?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:AR5 says nothing like "majority of edible ocean life dies". quote:A few studies provide limited evidence for adaptation in phytoplankton and mollusks. However, mass extinctions in Earth history The inability of species to survive in the ocean will disrupt a chain that you don't want to loving break. You are trying to be skeptical, when we have massive amounts of geological and paleological evidence for what happens during a slow-coming climate change. The one we are encouraging is a LOT more quick. Extinction level events are a certainty at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:How exactly are you planning on farming fish in an ocean that kills all oxygen breathing life? Perhaps you should ask Trabisnikof who doesn't even believe that wild fish stocks will decline in the next few decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Perhaps you should ask Trabisnikof who doesn't even believe that wild fish stocks will decline in the next few decades. He's a really confusing poster so I mostly ignore everything he says.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Perhaps you should ask Trabisnikof who doesn't even believe that wild fish stocks will decline in the next few decades. Where did I say that? All I said is that scientific consensus isn't "BAU == Apocalypse," which is very true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
I figured we'd have fished most species into collapse long before climate change did the job, tbh. Isn't the bluefin predicted to be extinct within a decade at current rates of capture? (I say, while eyeballing the empty sushi place in front of me.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where did I say that? All I said is that scientific consensus isn't "BAU == Apocalypse," which is very true. That really depends a lot of the definition of apocalypse. For most capitalists the end of perpetual growth is the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
If we somehow manage to build Ark ships before things go totally tits up, who will make sure no climate change denier/skeptic gets a seat? It is important to me that they reap what they sow, you see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where did I say that? All I said is that scientific consensus isn't "BAU == Apocalypse," which is very true. I'm not going to bother arguing semantics with you, but the article I linked clearly said that wild-caught fish will be a minority of fish eaten for food within 20 years. That's consistent with my original statement that the majority of edible fish in the ocean will die/collapse to unprofitable levels within our lifetimes. Do you think that's because people prefer the taste of farmed fish (hint, most of it's gross)? Do you think climate change and ocean acidification have any effect on fish stock levels? Radbot fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm not going to bother arguing semantics with you, but the article I linked clearly said that wild-caught fish will be a minority of fish eaten for food within 20 years. That's consistent with my original statement that the majority of edible fish in the ocean will die/collapse to unprofitable levels within our lifetimes. You disproved your own point in your post. Just because we might lose wild caught fish in our diet, which is awful, doesn't mean we will even have to stop eating all fish. Also the actual scientific article that NYTs links to of course discusses methods to prevent the impacts, which are not even climate based. So still not proving your point. Nothing you've linked backs up the premise that BAU equals apocalyptic conditions, which is my point: the scientifically backed impacts of climate change are very bad, but not of the scale that many claim. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You disproved your own point in your post. Just because we might lose wild caught fish in our diet, which is awful, doesn't mean we will even have to stop eating all fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Impact_on_human_industry Putting 400-800 million people out of work is certainly NOT a plus. You are daft if you think its not going to be a major, if not world altering, event. Certainly close to apocalyptic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You disproved your own point in your post. Just because we might lose wild caught fish in our diet, which is awful, doesn't mean we will even have to stop eating all fish. I'm not making any claim about BAU, I don't even know what that stands for. Please stop putting words in my mouth. All I needed to know is that you're one of those folks who would even say "who cares that we lose all wild fish, we can farm what we need. Sure the fish is horrible quality, but technically the calories are coming from things that temporarily live in the ocean". I think we've discussed this all we need to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Impact_on_human_industry Really, I'm trying to make a point about the extent of scientific support for impact scenarios and you link to wikipedia? I'd love to see the scientific papers that argue that 400-800 million people would be put out of work by ocean acidification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really, I'm trying to make a point about the extent of scientific support for impact scenarios and you link to wikipedia? http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001682
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Nothing you've linked backs up the premise that BAU equals apocalyptic conditions, which is my point: the scientifically backed impacts of climate change are very bad, but not of the scale that many claim. Exactly where do we need to draw the line between "very bad" and "apocalyptic" (neither of which are meant to be scientific terms, you fuckwit) to satisfy your desire to nitpick, Arkane Jr?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really, I'm trying to make a point about the extent of scientific support for impact scenarios and you link to wikipedia? http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001682 Look, at this point you are banging your head against the wall: If you think that ocean acidification is going to be a 'meh' event, you might as well stop pretending to actually be concerned about Climate Change at all, its disingenuous. At the end of the day, changes to the acid levels of the ocean are going to be catastrophic to ocean life, which does have a direct impact on humans. The fact that you'd just handwave what could be the largest extinction even since the Paleocene is actually kind of disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001682 I don't see why you're being such a Chicken Little. We can still shovel chicken poo poo into the ocean and feed fish that were bred in tanks, what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Funny, that paper doesn't say anything about 400-800 Million people losing jobs, only that those people that will be impacted by compromised goods and services: quote:The social ramifications are also likely to be massive and challenging as some 470 to 870 million people – who can least afford dramatic changes to their livelihoods – live in areas where ocean goods and services could be compromised by substantial changes in ocean biogeochemistry. I like that paper a lot, but it doesn't prove what you want it to prove. Hello Sailor posted:Exactly where do we need to draw the line between "very bad" and "apocalyptic" (neither of which are meant to be scientific terms, you fuckwit) to satisfy your desire to nitpick, Arkane Jr? Exaggerating the impacts of climate change beyond what the science supports hurts both the credibility of advocates for change on climate policy and also reduces the chances of us actually doing something about it. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
You're right, the person who originally said "lose jobs" was wrong. You're missing the forest for the trees, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Actually, an anoxic event would be the very definition of an apocalypse. It is very doubtful humanity as a species would survive it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:49
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Funny, that paper doesn't say anything about 400-800 Million people losing jobs, only that those people that will be impacted by compromised goods and services: yeah the exaggeration of impacts is really holding us back in the fight against climate change, said noone ever
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Exaggerating the impacts of climate change beyond what the science supports hurts both the credibility of advocates for change on climate policy and also reduces the chances of us actually doing something about it. Yeah, we know what you're arguing. What I'm asking (and you've refused to answer) is exactly what your criteria are for rating the effects of climate change as various adjectives for "bad". You can also explain why you're the arbiter of those ratings, while you're at it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Actually, an anoxic event would be the very definition of an apocalypse. It is very doubtful humanity as a species would survive it. Do you have a link to a scientific study claiming that a global ocean anoxic event would occur as a result of BAU? down with slavery posted:yeah the exaggeration of impacts is really holding us back in the fight against climate change, said noone ever Seeing how those exaggerated claims are what get held up as "proof" that climate change is a conspiracy or at best the science is faulty, yes it does hurt the chances of reform. Hello Sailor posted:Yeah, we know what you're arguing. What I'm asking (and you've refused to answer) is exactly what your criteria are for rating the effects of climate change as various adjectives for "bad". You can also explain why you're the arbiter of those ratings, while you're at it. You're mistaking my point then. I'm not saying I get to decide squat. I'm saying that often the claimed impacts of climate change is not supported in the scientific literature with anywhere near the certainty being claimed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:52
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Seeing how those exaggerated claims are what get held up as "proof" that climate change is a conspiracy or at best the science is faulty, yes it does hurt the chances of reform. No it really doesn't Maybe you'd like to source the claim or try to support the idea that exaggerated consequences are somehow responsible for the lack of action we see today.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
What the hell is this "BAU" that Trabis keeps talking about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:54
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:What the hell is this "BAU" that Trabis keeps talking about? "Business as usual" I believe, which is a fancy way of saying "doing nothing".
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No it really doesn't And it better be peer-reviewed research, since that's when he's/she's been asking for whenever we make a claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Seeing how those exaggerated claims are what get held up as "proof" that climate change is a conspiracy or at best the science is faulty, yes it does hurt the chances of reform. Except is it REALLY exaggerated? We know the events that lead up to the last big wipe-out of the ocean and how it occurred, and we are seeing similar things right now. The problem is not the evidence and the claims, the problem is for profit companies that don't want regulation that these reforms will institute cutting into their profit margin! Trabisnikof posted:Exaggerating the impacts of climate change beyond what the science supports hurts both the credibility of advocates for change on climate policy and also reduces the chances of us actually doing something about it. We're not exaggerating. These things have happened before, it'd be one thing to make claims based on no evidence or history whatsoever, its a complete other thing when we know not only has this happened before, it was catastrophic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:"Business as usual" I believe, which is a fancy way of saying "doing nothing". God what a retard
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No it really doesn't I mean, its not hard to find an example of the deniers using a public claim by a non-scientist to "disprove" the science: quote:A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013 Friendly Tumour posted:What the hell is this "BAU" that Trabis keeps talking about? Business as Usual, sorry I just get lazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:56
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean, its not hard to find an example of the deniers using a public claim by a non-scientist to "disprove" the science: Yes and how exactly is this preventing us from taking action again? Also, surprise, that claim wasn't proven false unless the words "could be" don't mean the same thing they did yesterday.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
What is the definition of the word "could", again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean, its not hard to find an example of the deniers using a public claim by a non-scientist to "disprove" the science: Okay, Al Gore is not a scientist. Everytime someone brings up Al Gore as proof Climate Change is a hoax, I want to punch them in the face. Two: CNS News is a conservative news site. I'm kind of seeing a problem with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
mdemone posted:What is the definition of the word "could", again? look man you can't expect him to actually read the articles he copy pastes from his google searches
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yes and how exactly is this preventing us from taking action again? You don't get how giving ammo to the enemy can help them? CommieGIR posted:We're not exaggerating. These things have happened before, it'd be one thing to make claims based on no evidence or history whatsoever, its a complete other thing when we know not only has this happened before, it was catastrophic. I'm sorry, I was unaware that modern civilization experienced anthropogenic climate change before, my bad!  CommieGIR posted:Okay, Al Gore is not a scientist. Everytime someone brings up Al Gore as proof Climate Change is a hoax, I want to punch them in the face.  See, that was my point. Read the post you quoted, where I called Al Gore a non-scientist and my source as a "denier".
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm sorry, I was unaware that modern civilization experienced anthropogenic climate change before, my bad!  You'd have to be a moron to not know what I am talking about. Well done. Just because humans were not involved or around during that one does not mean the same effects are going to be negligible upon the Human species.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event Trabisnikof posted:
And yet you don't seem to grasp how the Conservative movement is purely anti-Climate Change for no other reason than that they are taking their advice from Conservative Political leaders and Lobbyists, and why this should have no bearing on scientists raising very valid alarms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
And you'd have to be a moron to claim that was Anthropogenic. Edit: just saw your edit, the importance of the fact modern climate change is anthropogenic is because if it is anthropogenic we have a better capacity to change it, compared to asteroids/volcanoes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:01
|
|