|
You can't really blame it solely on Trump appointees, given that people like Lamar Smith have been on the war path against any sort of progressive environmental policy for years. Credit where credit is due, although the fake news and climate denial will undoubtedly get worse as time marches on. For example, today the official Twitter account for the House Science committee tweeted out a link to a Breitbart article casting doubt on climate change because it's cold outside.  The account has had an anti-Obama, anti-regulation, climate skeptic bent for a while, but I guess they're kicking things up a notch now.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Furnaceface posted:I complained about this earlier in the thread. We are relatively sheltered from climate change (for now) and its really affecting how seriously people take it. Its going to take something tragic or dangerous happening that directly affects a large chunk of the population to get most people here to care enough about the damage we do to the world. Here in Australia, a couple of things happened last month: two thirds of the Great Barrier Reef died, and the Prime Minister blamed wind power for a state-wide power grid outage during a massive storm. I really don't know what it would take for our "leaders" to engage seriously with this stuff, rather than just slotting it in to the political point-scoring machine. (Also I wonder if there is some way of re-naming wind & solar power to make them appeal to the world's morons. Maybe "atmospheric power stripper" and "long-range fusion-blast capture system"...)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Jesus panels and gunmills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:You can't really blame it solely on Trump appointees, given that people like Lamar Smith have been on the war path against any sort of progressive environmental policy for years. Credit where credit is due, although the fake news and climate denial will undoubtedly get worse as time marches on. Land temperatures != atmospheric temperatures 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:You can't really blame it solely on Trump appointees, given that people like Lamar Smith have been on the war path against any sort of progressive environmental policy for years. Credit where credit is due, although the fake news and climate denial will undoubtedly get worse as time marches on. literally do not know what the gently caress efb
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
The "eerie silence" is people with a brain trying to comprehend how you manage to get dressed in the morningSalt Fish posted:Jesus panels and gunmills. My Jesus panels saved me! ($20 on my electricity bill)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
1°C increase: It's only one degree! Natural variations!! 1°C decrease: Temperatures PLUNGE and PLUMMET Climate Change is FAKE
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
VectorSigma posted:1°C increase: It's only one degree! Natural variations!! *brings a snowball into the House chambers because snow still exists* WHERE'S YOUR WARMING NOW
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
There is no further question; we're the baddies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Wait 2/3 of the great barrier reef died , Jesus Christ wth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Don't worry, it's just natural variation. Nothing to be alarmed about. Speaking of - last two days of November each saw a little over 100,000 sq km of growth in Arctic sea ice extent, about 70% of what's needed to catch up by next week. At that point, 2012 becomes the previous low, but the trends greatly suggest that it will become the second lowest to 2016 - for awhile to come. At this point, there's basically no chance of 2016 Arctic sea ice extent catching up to 2012 before Christmas - and it seems unlikely to do so by the end of the year. Oh, and one other thing: remember the 2016 prediction for an ice-free Arctic in the summer? While it was the 'date' cited, the prediction actually came with an error of ±3 years (2013 - 2019), and said prediction was for "nearly ice-free." Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Wait 2/3 of the great barrier reef died , Jesus Christ wth. Sorry, I got my numbers mixed up. 2/3 of the coral in the North Sector died this year. It will take fifteen years to grow back, provided temperatures do not increase during that time, hahaha. Incidentally a 2-degree temperature rise results in 97% coral death. However the South sector that the tourists generally see had very little bleaching. So no problem!! We even had one of our white nationalist senators go snorkelling there to raise awareness of the fact that global warming is a conspiracy by the Greens to hurt Queensland's tourism industry. Other threats to the reef include the time a bulk coal carrier ran aground in it, the time US bombers on a training mission had to jettison some spare bombs onto the reef, and the Queensland government's plan to dredge channels directly through the reef to let more coal ships through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
So here are how things are now, and how things ended up in a few previous years if those years were shifted down to the current arctic sea ice area. At this point, I suspect my estimation of 2016 arctic sea ice area ending in the yellow might be too high. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
That descending, nicely ordered row of 2012 2013 2014 2015 on the y-axis there certainly is, uh, evocative of the situation we are in
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Oh. I hadn't noticed that, but you are certainly correct. Fascinating. I suppose the superimposed lines would be curious to see, too:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
I'll put my chips in the pink triangle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
on the topic of coral reefs: is it not possible to relocate or create new ones? I understand that these are massive ecosystems that live in a fragile balance and are organisms that built up over thousands of years, but from what I can see ... they're going to die regardless. Even if we manage to curb our emissions we still won't be able to slow down ocean temperatures rising too high for the reefs to survive - so can't we try building a new reef in an area that is now cold but that will heat up as the ocean inevitably will?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
double nine posted:on the topic of coral reefs: is it not possible to relocate or create new ones? I understand that these are massive ecosystems that live in a fragile balance and are organisms that built up over thousands of years, but from what I can see ... they're going to die regardless. Even if we manage to curb our emissions we still won't be able to slow down ocean temperatures rising too high for the reefs to survive - so can't we try building a new reef in an area that is now cold but that will heat up as the ocean inevitably will? Its Ocean Acidity that is the larger overall issue, coral is particularly sensitive to ocean acidification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:For example, today the official Twitter account for the House Science committee tweeted out a link to a Breitbart article casting doubt on climate change because it's cold outside. https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/804432339640037376
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
double nine posted:on the topic of coral reefs: is it not possible to relocate or create new ones? I understand that these are massive ecosystems that live in a fragile balance and are organisms that built up over thousands of years, but from what I can see ... they're going to die regardless. Even if we manage to curb our emissions we still won't be able to slow down ocean temperatures rising too high for the reefs to survive - so can't we try building a new reef in an area that is now cold but that will heat up as the ocean inevitably will? What part of your own pointing out that they take thousands of years do you not understand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:What part of your own pointing out that they take thousands of years do you not understand? I donno, maybe the fact that Dubai has done it and apparently succeeded? so ... why aren't we doing it for the great barrier?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:What part of your own pointing out that they take thousands of years do you not understand? well in the year 3016 there could be a sprawling new great barrier reef around the scottish 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
double nine posted:I donno, maybe the fact that Dubai has done it and apparently succeeded? Where would you move the largest coral reef in the world so that it'd be safe from both temperature changes and ocean acidification?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
double nine posted:I donno, maybe the fact that Dubai has done it and apparently succeeded? Oh my God, you're serious, aren't you? I can't believe people like you are given the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Where would you move the largest coral reef in the world so that it'd be safe from both temperature changes and ocean acidification? A giant fish tank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Where would you move the largest coral reef in the world so that it'd be safe from both temperature changes and ocean acidification? Also the Dubai story is from a source that has a censorship process dictated by the UAE, so its probably going to be pretty optimistic about the environmental impacts of moving coral.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Oh my God, you're serious, aren't you? not really - at least not in the literal sense. But taking bits and pieces of the current reef and sticking it in a place where it can grow so that we keep some eco-diversity doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
double nine posted:not really - at least not in the literal sense. But taking bits and pieces of the current reef and sticking it in a place where it can grow so that we keep some eco-diversity doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I blame Western pharmaceuticals and that Anthony Hopkins movie for this basic misunderstanding of ecology as being a catalog of specimens. Eco-diversity is not about having one of each thing. The entire reef is the ecosystem, parceling it out doesn't give you a Reef Seed it just gives you some isolated components. Like keeping a saint's fingerbone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
You would have to do some kind of thing like fish farming, where you have a section of reef that's in the ocean but partially isolated so that you can control the temperature and acidity of the water. It wouldn't be practical on a very large scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
The implication being that countries that depend on fisheries that depend on reefs have no recourse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
double nine posted:not really - at least not in the literal sense. But taking bits and pieces of the current reef and sticking it in a place where it can grow so that we keep some eco-diversity doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Well, the reef itself is sort of doing that already, with some corals starting to appear a bit further south each year. The problem is... well, the GBR is big; you could comfortably stretch it from New York to Cuba or from Scotland to Morocco. And that's not 2000+km of one ecosystem, but rather many tiny overlapping systems with their own set of obscure sub-species. I guess preserving some diversity is better than preserving none, but for [non-ecocidal] Australians it feels a lot like a Parisian being told they must relocate the Louvre by shifting three paintings and a sculpture or two. Another question- which thread is more soul-destroying, this one or the Middle East Thread of Despair?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Well, the reef itself is sort of doing that already, with some corals starting to appear a bit further south each year. The problem is... well, the GBR is big; you could comfortably stretch it from New York to Cuba or from Scotland to Morocco. And that's not 2000+km of one ecosystem, but rather many tiny overlapping systems with their own set of obscure sub-species. Depends on your ability to comprehend the unprecedented, utterly irrecoverable catastrophe that global warming will bring over the next 20 years and beyond. poo poo in the ME is happening right now and can give you plethora of personal accounts so it's easier to relate to for primitive monkey brains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Depends on your ability to comprehend the unprecedented, utterly irrecoverable catastrophe that global warming will bring over the next 20 years and beyond. poo poo in the ME is happening right now and can give you plethora of personal accounts so it's easier to relate to for primitive monkey brains. Isnt climate change going to intensify the ME problems as populations are forced to migrate out of areas that were once habitable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Isnt climate change going to intensify the ME problems as populations are forced to migrate out of areas that were once habitable? Nah man that's the beauty of the plan. When summer rolls around those people will just die quietly!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
VectorSigma posted:I'll put my chips in the pink triangle. That might be a good bet. +88,180 sq km on December 1st is pretty loving low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:That might be a good bet. I should mention because I haven't said it; I appreciate your daily updates because it's something that slaps me in the face whenever I start to feel even slightly complacent and tells me to get back to work
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I blame Western pharmaceuticals and that Anthony Hopkins movie for this basic misunderstanding of ecology as being a catalog of specimens. Eco-diversity is not about having one of each thing. The entire reef is the ecosystem, parceling it out doesn't give you a Reef Seed it just gives you some isolated components. Like keeping a saint's fingerbone. To expand on this, species diversity increases as you get closer to the equator. Tropical areas have a greater number of species per unit area. This means competition is high and most species are highly specialized to efficiently exploit a particular niche, and even more so given that there is less seasonal variation in weather near the equator. Consequently, tropical species tend to be restricted to whatever localized environment best supports them. As you climb a mountain in the Amazon, for example, the environment becomes cooler and plant and animal species will vary greatly over relatively small distances. As average temperatures climb, those habitats have to shift up the mountain, and those species that can't keep up are at greater risk of extinction. If a shift of a few hundred meters is unfeasible, relocating to another latitude is out of the question, and you'd have to scoop up huge sections to actually preserve the total diversity anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Isnt climate change going to intensify the ME problems as populations are forced to migrate out of areas that were once habitable? There's a book called 'tropic of chaos' that makes a pretty compelling case that this is already well under way. While its by no means solely responsible, or even the primary cause, desertification can clearly be seen as a contributing factor in afghanistan, syria, kenya/ethiopia and mexico's problems today. Also the arab spring. Essentially we're past the point where global warming is going to cause problems soon, and into phase 1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Are there any updated maps that show or project global desertification? The last one I remember seeing was from 2013 and it was scary enough then, I can only imagine what 3 more years of data would have done. Also Im assuming phase 2 is the resource war?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I saw this thread and decided to read it because I work for an Green Energy company, and now I see why they're spending so much time in lovely red states on Solar and Wind Projects. Holy poo poo. Why red states? I don't get it. I know TED talks can be a lot of dumb bullshit to make people feel better, but how is this dudes idea? Basically using grazing animals for land management to reverse desertification of grasslands; the new fauna and top soil should absorb a lot of carbon. Is this dumb bull poo poo? Not practical on a large scale? Can McDonalds save the world? Honestly seems retarded he doesn't even mention the methane from the livestock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI edit: Reading about intensive rotational grazing and other such grazing methods really put a hamper on the points from that guys talk. It barely sequesters carbon in the best of cases, but better grazing methods certainly cause less damage (less carbon footprint, less soil damage, etc) than no grazing methods or burning fields. Deadly Ham Sandwich fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 05:37
|
|