|
You can easily do both. Does Arkane post in this thread anymore or has he been successfully run out in shame?
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Banana Man posted:You can easily do both. Does Arkane post in this thread anymore or has he been successfully run out in shame? He's too busy manipulating the worldwide surface temperature graph with this year's data to make it look like the warming has paused since 1998.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:You can easily do both. Does Arkane post in this thread anymore or has he been successfully run out in shame? I kind of expect this year to be the first stage of a full-on pivot of the skeptic narrative over to blaming the UN, blaming government waste for the reason renewables aren't yet viable, picking at the EPA, all that poo poo. By the end of 2017 things will have almost entirely shifted from "climate change isn't happening" to "the serious problems being caused or exacerbated by climate change are the fault of the progressive left." rivetz fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Apr 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
I'm expecting "We need to unshackle the free market so it can deal with the challenges of climate change" at some point in the next year or so. It'll probably come after a couple more spikes in the solar installation base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Rime posted:poo poo sucks, eh? What are you gonna do about it? Sit there and tremble and let it ruin the good times while they last? Right now you're one of the luckiest humans who has ever lived, since this species was formed. Do something with your loving lives. I feel like you left this off at a cliffhanger: "Do something with your loving lives..." A) ...and do everything you can to slow or reverse climate change, starting with personal responsibility for the species. B) ...and just keep on keeping on. C) other options? I could be missing something Wanderer posted:I'm expecting "We need to unshackle the free market so it can deal with the challenges of climate change" at some point in the next year or so. Frankly, I was waiting to hear about this in, like, 2010 with independent US energy generation w/ nuclear being a popular thing in the 2008 elections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Eh? I don't care. Row row fight the power by getting high and waving some signs, climb all 14 8k'ers solo, build a backyard nuclear reactor and become an urban terrorist, assasinate a president. Do Something. Every moment you waste on SA complaining about being paralyzed by existential dread is a moment spent burning such privilege as kings and emperors of old never knew, that wealth of opportunity you have today is rapidly draining away as things accelerate, and you sure as poo poo won't be able to go dive the barrier reef in 2030. You'll be too busy remembering what almonds tasted like, the last time you saw one, ten years prior.  No goon can individually stop global climate change, that ship sailed before I was even fuckin' born. So, what, you're going to waste your time today worrying about it and then have done nothing when it does arrive? Even if Wanderers (rather optimistic) scenario is the future, you'll regret having squandered your time now. At least Caro did something more interesting than bitch and moan. This applies to life outside of the context of impending apocalypse, btw. Now, meanwhile in Nicaragua: quote:The drastic reduction or disappearance of 34 rivers, the near-complete evaporation of at least four lakes, the loss of nearly 6,000 hectares (14,815 acres) of pine forest, reduced rainfall and the advance of the agricultural frontier are some of the challenges Nicaragua faces, the NGOs said in their "Nicaraguan Socio-Environmental Crisis: Post-2016 Drought" report. Rime fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
I'm talking about the nation descending into civil war over water rights and I'm the optimistic one. Gotta love climate change.Rime posted:You'll be too busy remembering what almonds tasted like, the last time you saw one, ten years prior. "You drat kids, with your vat-grown Can't Believe It's Not Almonds. Let me tell you about when California had agriculture--"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Seeing as personal meltdown posts and smug syperiority is a thing in this thread, I'll throw my two anecdotal meltdown smug cognitive dissonance shitpost cents into the tithe bowl and remove my fedora. It is Sunday and SA is a place of worship. I did my first 11.2GHz photometric survey last week. Got one Crab nebula pulsar, its way to late in the season to get the other where I live. FPGAs breaking out of the dpu model of computing are doing amazing things in science right now at 1/100th or even 1/1000th the cost of a specialized high-frequency measurement system. Next step: move the FFT on to the board. I wonder what the co2 footprint of an $80 project board is. Probably lower than travel to the Great Barrier Reef, though still there is going to be pollution and logistics involved in making a Cyclone V chip and the board it rode in on. At least it is functionally infinitely reusable. This is not a higer-and-mightier than you post. This is a, "why not do both? Reduce your impact and live your life" post. Travel around the world isn't "living" unless you've bought into that idea as sold by the travel industry. Having gone and seen Europe and northern South America, I can confirm I'd have gotten just as much if not more out of reading a book on Ferrari history in a local park than going to the Maranello plant and museum. This isn't FYGM, its actually a little regret I didn't save that cash instead. (e: sp). Our kids are going to find ways to enjoy themselves. I kinda like the concept of an ascetic life where I focus on learning how to make things with my mind on reusable things like wood or Arduino boards or FPGAs. This has the secondary effect of doing amazing things for my wallet. Maybe, in the future, it'll not be "how do I make photometric counter?" and instead be "how do I fix plow?" Works for me. International travel is like the Olive Garden of hobbies and entertainment: it's expensive and all you're likely to experience is a string of culturally watered-down fast food. If you see something great off the beaten path and actually get some morsel of authentic cultural experience, good for you. There is more culture and stuff to see by Amtrak within 300 miles of home than I think most people care to read on and explore. Our kids will have good rail systems, so hey, they'll get to see good poo poo if they want. I had more to say here but gently caress it, find your own meaning in life. If you need almonds to be happy, hey. Remember to vote on how we handle climate change with your wallet. I hear the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Go get a ticket, fast. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Yes, I realize that we aren't going to see FPGAs in the future of we can't fix a lot of poo poo now. Electronics are critical in science and progress. If poo poo gets so bad that our kids can't do research with electronic devices assisting them, hello new dark age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
The idea that your children will have decent rail service, let alone fast, is also pretty hilarious unless you live in Europe, China, or Japan.
Rime fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Rime posted:The idea that your children will have decent rail service, let alone fast, is also pretty hilarious unless you live in Europe, China, or Japan. Not a good feeling when the reds have some poo poo figured out better than you 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Eh, North American rail is amazing for cargo and is a far better alternative for the climate than shipping that cargo by truck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Incidentally, on the do something front, let's talk about that for a second. If possible, in response, leave your "that can't possibly help at all given the sheer scale of the problem" and "that won't matter unless we do [your pet cause/technology] immediately and completely" at the door. It would be nice to discuss that. The modifications you can make to your lifestyle to help reduce your carbon footprint are pretty well-worn territory: adjust your diet, eat locally, don't loving litter (I live within a block of a small suburban shopping center and the sheer amount of random plastic crap that people just throw into the bushes makes me want to hole up on my rooftop with a sniper rifle), don't drive unless you have to, etc. I'm sure there are less obvious methods, such as local farming co-ops you can contribute to or participate in, that I'd never have thought of. It might also be worth talking about resources and methods by which you could actually help solve some of these problems for a living; a friend of mine abandoned his graphic design career for a job in the environmental sciences, and I know the Ocean Cleanup is hiring. You could also check out Greenwave, if you have access to the oceanfront. I'm also reading a bit about the algae industry, as a food producer and general carbon sink. A couple of years ago, there were people talking about algae curtains as a biofuel generator, but I'm not seeing too much movement on that front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Incidentally, on the do something front, let's talk about that for a second. If possible, in response, leave your "that can't possibly help at all given the sheer scale of the problem" and "that won't matter unless we do [your pet cause/technology] immediately and completely" at the door. Honestly, I think the best tactic is still to get involved in local politics. Folks in Renton, WA just defeated a methanol plant, the Lummi Nation (up near Bellingham) has slammed the breaks on a massive coal export terminal project, and there's been protests and civil disobedience over Shell's arctic drilling, coal trains, and the trains transporting that unstable oil all along Washington and even in places like Montana. As you've said, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't help given the sheer scale of the problem, but that's the basis for expanding actions to address the problem at scale. Just like $15/hour started with a few fast food workers, then the Tacoma Airport, then Seattle and spread around the country and is now getting passed in places like LA and NY (and, incidentally, celebrated by politicians who had literally nothing to do with it), other activist movements have the potential to take off too. All over the country, there's communities opposing fracking, pipelines, coal, and other local issues. One of the biggest things, I think, is to not just encourage the opposition to fossil fuels, but encourage local governments subsidizing things like home or apartment insulation, and hiring people to build projects like local trams, renewable energy plants, and that sort of thing. It directly connects to issues of poverty and jobs, which is one of the things people need in order to be secure enough to do any of the lifestyle change things you're talking about. Also, thanks for bringing the discussion towards solutions again. Things like the ocean cleanup project are really cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I'm a big believer in breaking things down. A single big problem or project is typically something you can address as a series of individual challenges, and making it a list of achievable tasks goes a long way towards making the whole thing less intimidating. So yeah, on the macro scale, walking down the street and picking up all the random plastic crap in the gutters means nothing, but on the local, micro scale, it's something, and you have no idea what knock-on effects it'll have. Maybe somebody else starts doing it too on the next block over; maybe you'll start some conversations about it with passersby; maybe you turn it into a local movement or get the local children involved. Journey of a thousand miles, single step, etc. Getting involved in local politics on any level is a strong first step, and it's something that modern progressives already need to do, given the sheer number of unchallenged shitheads that flock to town, county, and state politics. I'm hoping that's a consequence of the Bernie Sanders campaign: inciting a new generation to make their voices heard and get to the goddamn ballot box in non-presidential years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:All over the country, there's communities opposing fracking, pipelines, coal, and other local issues. This is actually part of the problem though. Opposing things because they're the hot topic of the month/year or NIMBY bullshit is not worthy of praise. A top down policy needs to be driven to seek the beat way to minimize carbon emissions. Fracking and pipelines probably led to more net carbon offset than just about anything else that's occurred in the past 20 years. Every pipeline project that's shuttered leads to more, inefficient, transport by rail. If we were to ban fracking tomorrow you'd see coal use skyrocket over the next few years without a comprehensive national energy policy that's designed to manage grid demands, growth and offset as many emissions as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:
I think this is a (really good) point that is mappable onto a whole bevy of other social issues as well. The "status quo" as we know it is a global eyeblink's worth of time, and somehow it's expected that everything is just going to continue this way. People lose perspective INCREDIBLY rapidly. The "what we currently know" of everything in the United States was hammered into shape less than a hundred years ago, but it exercises a hilariously strong influence over even the framework within which people address contemporary problems. There's probably an actual peer reviewed discipline that studies this phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I've been a big fan of Bill Maher for a long time, not least because, for all his smarminess, his stupidity on vaccines, and just-this-side-of-Islamophobia position on the Middle East...he's one of the only talking heads out there that has been constantly hammering on the importance of climate change for a long time. They spent a solid ten minutes on the topic Friday night, and it's worth a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBZ5Wu4NASU . It's crazy and horrible that this is pretty much the only sustained conversation on this topic I've actually seen on my TV in years. If you have access to HBO Go or another avenue, I recommend watching the whole segment, as there's a terrific bit where various headlines scroll on the right covering the breadth of concerns related to AGW. Because I give a poo poo, I'll transcribe em for y'all: "Almost half of Americans live with unhealthy levels of air pollution" - The Guardian, 4/29/14 "WWF: World has lost more than half its wildlife in 40 years" - CNN, 9/30/14 "Most coastal cities will face routine flooding in our lifetimes, NOAA says" - Washington Post, 12/18/14 "What's causing Texas earthquakes? Fracking 'most likely,' report says" - CNN, 5/11/15 "How Climate Change is Behind the Surge of Migrants to Europe" - Time, 9/7/15 "Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction, Broad Study Says" - New York Times, 1/15/16 "2015 Is Warmest Year on Record, NOAA and NASA say" - CNN, 1/20/16 "In Zika Epidemic, A Warning on Climate Change" - New York Times, 2/20/16 "Seas are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries" - New York Times, 2/22/16 "Rising Sea Levels May Disrupt Lives of Millions, Study Says": ""The researchers estimated that the cost of relocating the 13/1 million people displaced by sea-level rise would be $14 trillion" - New York Times, 3/14/16 "US methane emissions are drastically underestimated, a new study shows" - PRI 3/14/16 "Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries" - New York Times, 3/22/16 "Numbers of managed honey bee colonies plummeting" - WMMT, 3/25/16 "Melting ice sheets changing the way the Earth wobbles on its axis, says NASA" - The Guardian, 4/8/16 "Climate-Related Death of Coral Around the World Alarms Scientists" - New York Times, 4/9/16 "Wildfires, Once Confined to a Season, Burn Earlier and Longer" - New York Times, 4/12/16 "Great Barrier Reef: Half of natural wonder is 'dead or dying', and it is on the brink of extinction, scientists say" - The Independent, 4/20/16 As dismaying as it is to see such a laundry list of concerns paraded down the screen in this implacable Scroll of Woe™....goddamn, we could use more of this sort of thing. It says something bad when the only place you see a frank summary of the scope of the issue followed by substantive discussion is on a late-night comedy show. Also Lesley Stahl hits it on the head at the 3:00 mark when she points out that when so many people deny there's even a problem, it completely short-circuits conversations about the solution. I know we're past that in this thread and all, but it's worth emphasizing again that this remains the real problem (maybe the only problem, since it's still pretty effectively stonewalling discussion of all the real ones.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
That was a surprisingly decent discussion, but it also kind of highlights the problem with a lot of these debates. On one side you have the people who think we're going to solve everything with no consumption changes by embracing nuclear and fracking and on the other you have the people who are essentially using the crisis to push a social agenda. It comes off as completely disingenuous when the guy beating the drums about cost won't acknowledge that moving to nuclear on a wide scale is incredibly costly before you even account for the damage that you'll cause to existing energy generation industries (not to mention the climate costs of expanded fracking and natural gas use). Meanwhile, everyone else is complaining about how dire the situation is while just outright ruling out a clean and largely effective component of the solution. I'm honestly very sympathetic to the views of people like Naomi Klein who see climate change as the perfect opportunity to push for social change, but sooner or later we're going to have to acknowledge how dishonest it is to scream about saving the world at any cost while shutting down effective options that we're ideologically opposed to. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
I feel that I don't really owe society or humanity anything, since I wasn't asked to be brought into this world, thus I will maximize my enjoyment while I can. There is absolutely no way to reconcile capitalist America with a world where you "have less", aka, a world that has stopped experiencing economic growth. Literally every single thing Americans care about, in a macro sense, is tied to economic growth. We couldn't even deal with two loving buildings coming down in a mature way, what makes you think we can discard capitalism without some sort of hyperholocaust? Radbot fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Pretty sure the term you are looking for is "World War 3". I'm moderately convinced it's going to happen at this point, and it's a question of where&when, not if.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Meanwhile, everyone else is complaining about how dire the situation is while just outright ruling out a clean and largely effective component of the solution. I'm honestly very sympathetic to the views of people like Naomi Klein who see climate change as the perfect opportunity to push for social change, but sooner or later we're going to have to acknowledge how dishonest it is to scream about saving the world at any cost while shutting down effective options that we're ideologically opposed to. Radbot posted:There is absolutely no way to reconcile capitalist America with a world where you "have less", aka, a world that has stopped experiencing economic growth. I also think that it is possible to "have less" without really impacting quality of life, and important things like healthcare, education, transit, and necessities like housing, food, and even energy. Since all of our energy feasibly can come from nuclear and renewable, we don't need to use less of it. We will need to cut back on consumerism, but consumerism is not the same as quality of life (though plenty of people have confused the two). Happiness doesn't have to come from an endless supply of lovely plastic toys at a mega Wal-Mart, or electronics you toss after a year. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Some of the happiest people I have met in my entire life were living on $150 USD a month in a technical war zone. They were all university educated, some of them really quite successful in the structure of the former USSR. Hell one dude worked on the Soviet moonshot FFS, now he's a part time taxi driver. An old platinum investor from Fresno that I met there put it to me succinctly: quote:"I had a great gig in California, made bank, had women. It got boring, what was the point? So I gave it all up and came here to fight in the war, but I was too old and the war was over. Rime fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
That's actually a pretty consistent throughline in a lot of lifestyle/economy pieces. As a consequence of not having any money and/or lousy jobs, younger people don't participate in the economy or in society to the level that economy or society would presently prefer: they aren't buying cars or houses, they're marrying later if they do at all, etc. In turn, due to that lack of opportunity, they're revitalizing some smaller areas (Buffalo, New York is a big one, or it was at one point). They can't get the goods that once signified "success," so they're making do without, and in so doing, undermining the system that's doing its best to gently caress them to death. Side note: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/ I'll go so far as to agree that within the current capitalist framework, an adequate response is virtually impossible, but the framework is less rigid than people seem to want to believe. The current hyperactive consumption state is, to go into some of the same territory that whitey delenda est was covering, a relatively new construction. It can be challenged; it can be overcome. In fact, pressures within that same framework are already moving to do the job, with the coming mainstream of automation, drones, and self-driving vehicles. When you take away even the lovely, entry-level jobs, what's left? Do you come up with a bunch of government sinecures to bolster the rolls? Do you crack the first trillionaire open like a flesh pinata and distribute his assets and meat among the poor? Does somebody try universal basic income and promptly bollocks it up? What I'd guess would be a lot more likely is that capitalism will attempt to react to climate change via what I've seen a couple of people call the "regenerative economy": some hell-blend of projects, infrastructure, service, and renewables research that attempts to turn the whole thing into a way to get about six dudes rich like pharaohs, while simultaneously making sure that Elon Musk can't go a single waking moment without an approving slow blowjob from some facet of the press or public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I feel that I don't really owe society or humanity anything, since I wasn't asked to be brought into this world, thus I will maximize my enjoyment while I can. Americans are screwed. It's probably the most hopeless place in the entirety of the Western world and I greatly pity anyone my age who has to live there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Isaac0105 posted:Americans are screwed. It's probably the most hopeless place in the entirety of the Western world and I greatly pity anyone my age who has to live there. We have fewer refugees coming our way, so we're probably better in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Isaac0105 posted:Americans are screwed. It's probably the most hopeless place in the entirety of the Western world and I greatly pity anyone my age who has to live there. Are we still talking about Climate Change? Because AB32 and the Clean Power Plan are the most anyone has done for climate thus far. Especially compared to Europe. If we're talking about impact scale, south east Asia and South America will be far more negatively impacted by Climate Change than North America will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are we still talking about Climate Change? Because AB32 and the Clean Power Plan are the most anyone has done for climate thus far. Especially compared to Europe. CO2 emissions (MT): 1984 US - 4472 EU - 4266 2014 US - 5561 EU - 3420 The US sure has done so much for the climate thus far. Especially compared to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:CO2 emissions (MT): Good job comparing meaningless numbers! (Also you probably wanted to use CO2 equiv anyway) quote:Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-28 (including international aviation but excluding LULUCF), stood at 4 611 million tonnes of CO2-equivalents in 2013. This figure marked an overall reduction of 19.8 % when compared with 1990, or some 1 138 million tonnes of CO2-equivalents. Without international aviation, EU emissions were down 21.2 % below 1990 levels. The emissions are reduced not because of policy, but because of economic downturn. The Clean Power Plan and the CAFE standards are huge policy shifts compared to the EU's efforts. Likewise, AB32 is a far better cap-and-trade system than the EU ETS, to the point where the EU is a joke while AB32 is a model for new regulation. Not to say these plans don't have flaws, but this idea that America is forsaken is just ignorant of the level of global inaction. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Good job comparing meaningless numbers! Ah, yes. I too recall that 2009 economic downturn that affected the EU but not the US.  In reality, as we see, the emissions gap has only increased over time. Using CO2e emissions (since you mention CO2e specifically), the gap is increasing even faster because of US fracking. The drop in US emissions from 2008 is due to primarily economic factors, while the drop in EU emissions from the early 80s to 2008 is substantially due to policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Pretty cool, the Earth is greening far more than we expected: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html Could help to explain why climate models have been so crap (probably a minimal short-term impact in depressing temperature rise, but potentially a large long-term impact).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:The drop in US emissions from 2008 is due to primarily economic factors, while the drop in EU emissions from the early 80s to 2008 is substantially due to policy. Really now? Please tell me all about these EU climate polices from the 80s that caused the emission decline. (Hint: 2005 is after the 1980s) Or maybe instead it was economic factors, the fall of the soviet union, the shifting of high intensity industries out of the EU zone etc. After failing to meet their Kyoto commitments I don't know why you're white knighting the EU regulators so hard. Yes, you're correct that US emissions have increased as US energy sources have been brought in-country. I'm sure the methane leakage numbers on Russian gas and oil supplied to EU nations are completely accurate. Thankfully for the US, we can and have implemented stricter emissions regulations* and that's something EU regulators can't do to Russian producers. *Effective Jan 2015, so effectiveness data is still in the academic pipeline, but this EPA is serious about climate so I'm hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Pretty cool, the Earth is greening far more than we expected: Of course, the biggest gains were in areas that up until recently were encased in carbon-locking permafrost. That's like having part of your home randomly burst into flame, but then noting your heating bill isn't as high.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Climate change is exactly like a house fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Rime posted:The only difference when it comes to climate change is that it will drag the western world back into suffering it hasn't known for generations and has forgotten how to deal with. You're anxious because your mind knows one day you or your children might be living like the Sudanese do now, today, and that is uncomfortable. I'd rate this outcome as.....unlikely. How are u posted:I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. Are you not having a child because of climate change? Arkane fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Pretty cool, the Earth is greening far more than we expected: How could it be a large, long-term impact? As the one of the authors of the study says, quote:"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Pretty cool, the Earth is greening far more than we expected: Cool we were all wondering when you were going to stroll back into this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:in depressing temperature rise ...Sounds to me like you're bowing before the pressure of Big Climate Science. Comrade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:How could it be a large, long-term impact? As the one of the authors of the study says, I didn't mean it would accelerate, I meant that the year on year effect, over the long run, could mitigate significant amounts of atmospheric CO2. Obviously as plant life expands, carbon intake increases. So along with carbon sinking into the oceans, this is another naturally-occurring valve by which carbon is being drained from the atmosphere. Climate models are predicated on extremely large increases in CO2 levels, so even small changes year on year would have a profound impact on models projecting the carbon imbalance in, say, the year 2100.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really now? Please tell me all about these EU climate polices from the 80s that caused the emission decline. (Hint: 2005 is after the 1980s) "80s" was actually a typo in place of "90s" - we can see from the chart that I posted that EU emissions did not fall during the 80s - but at the same time, I didn't claim that there were EU climate policies from the 80s; EU member states have their own climate policies and were early signitories of Kyoto, collectively greatly surpassing the Kyoto target, contrary to your strange claim. "The European Union has succeeded in cutting its greenhouse gas emissions 18% since 1990, new reports from the European Commission and European Environment Agency show. The EU has also over-achieved its reduction commitment under the first period of the Kyoto Protocol by a wide margin." http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013100901_en.htm I still don't understand how you can claim that "AB32 and the Clean Power Plan are the most anyone has done for climate thus far. Especially compared to Europe." when the Clean Power Plan has been suspended and AB32 is a state level law that aims to achieve by 2020 what the entire EU surpassed a decade ago. Arkane posted:I didn't mean it would accelerate, I meant that the year on year effect, over the long run, could mitigate significant amounts of atmospheric CO2. Obviously as plant life expands, carbon intake increases. So along with carbon sinking into the oceans, this is another naturally-occurring valve by which carbon is being drained from the atmosphere. This increase in leaf area was between 1982 and 2015; can you point out on this chart where this increase in leaf area has mitigated "significant amounts of atmospheric CO2"? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 03:19
|
|